kChapter 3
DAVID M. CRUDEN AND
LANDSLIDE TYP ES
AND PROCESSES
iN I I it.iuiir.iij
he range of landslide processes is reviewed in
T this chapter, and a vocabulary is provided for
describing the features of landslides relevant
to their classification for avoidance, control, or re-
mediation. The classification of landslides in the
previous landslide report (Vames 1978) has been
widely adopted,, so departures from it have been
minimized and the emphasis is on the progress made
since 1978. Although this chapter is complete in
itself, particular attention is drawn to changes and
additions to the vocabulary used by Vames in the
previous report and the reasons for the changes.
The term landslide denotes "the movement of
a mass of rock, debris or earth down a slope"
(Cruden 1991, 27). The phenomena described as
landslides are not limited either to the land or to
sliding; the word as it is now used in North
America has a much more extensive meaning than
its component parts suggest (Cruden 1991). The
coverage in this chapter will, however, be identi-
cal to that of the previous report (Vames 1978).
Ground subsidence and collapse are excluded, and
snow avalanches and ice falls are not discussed.
This chapter also follows Vames's expressed
intention of (1978, 12) "developing and attempting
to make more precise a useful vocabulary of terms
by which... [landslides] ... may be described." The
terms Vames recommended in 1978 are largely
retained unchanged and a few useful new terms
have been added. Eliot (1963, 194) noted:
36
DAVIDJ. VARNES
Words strain,
Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension, slip, slide, perish,
Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place,
Will not stay still. .
Such displaced terms are identified in this chapter.
Following Vames (1978), the use of terms relating
to the geologic, geomorphic, geographic, or cli-
matic characteristics of a landslide has been dis-
couraged, and the section in the previous report in
which these terms are discussed has been deleted.
The viewpoint of the chapter is that of the
investigator responding to a report of a landslide
on a transportation route. What can be usefully
observed and how should these observations be
succinctly and unambiguously described?
The technical literature describing landslides
has grown considerably since 1978. An important
source of landslide information is the proceedings
of the International Symposium on Landslides.
The third symposium met in New Delhi, India
(Swaminathan 1980), and the symposium has since
met quádriennially in Toronto, Canada (Canadian
Geotechnical Society 1984); in Lausanne, Switzer-
land (Bonnard 1988); and in Christchurch, New
Zealand (Bell 1992); it is scheduled to meet in
Trondheim, Norway, in 1996.
Among the other important English language
texts and collections of descriptions of landslides
have been those by Zaruba and Mend (1982),
Brunsden and Prior (1984), Crozier (1986), and

Costa and Wieczorek (1987). Eisbacher and
Clague (1984) and Skermer's translation of Heim's
Bergsturz und Men.schenleben (1932) have made
descriptions of the classic landslides of the Euro-
pean Alps more accessible to North Americans.
Important reviews of landsliding around the
world were edited by Brabb and Harrod (1989) and
Kozlovskii (1988). Kyunttsel (1988) reviewed
experience with classification in the USSR and
noted "considerable divergences of views between
various researchers concerning the mechanisms
underlying certain types of landslides. This applies
particularly to lateral spreads."
A historical perspective has been added to the
discussion of spreading to show that this type of
landslide was recognized in North America over
100 years ago and is represented here by some
extremely large movements. Both the size and the
gentle slopes of these movements command par-
ticular attention.
Crozier commented:
The two generalized classifications most likely
to be encountered in the English speaking
world are by J .N. Hutchinson (1968; Skempton
and Hutchinson, 1969) and D.J. Vames (1958;
1978). . . . Both authors use type of movement
to establish the principal groups.. . . The major
distinction between the two classifications is
the difference accorded to the status of flow
movements . . . slope movements which are
initiated by shear failure on distinct, boundary
shear surfaces but which subsequently achieve
most of their translational movement by
flowage... this dilemma depends on whether
the principal interest rests with analyzing the
conditions of failure or with treating the results
of movement. Hutchinson's classification
appears to be related more closely to this first
purpose. . . . Both Hutchinson's and Vames'
classifications have tended to converge over
recent years, particularly in terminology.
Whereas Vames' scheme is perhaps easier
to apply and requires less expertise to use,
Hutchinson's classification has particular
appeal to the engineer contemplating stability
analysis. (Crozier 1986, Ch. 2)
The synthesis of these two classifications has con-
tinued. Hutchinson (1988) included topples, and
this chapter has benefited from his comments. In
Section 4 of this chapter particularly, which deals
Landslide Types and Processes 37
with landslide activity, many of Hutchinson's sug-
gestions from the Working Party on the World
Landslide Inventory (WP/WLI) have been
adopted (WP/WLI 1993a,b).
Under Hutchinson's chairmanship, the Interna-
tional Association of Engineering Geology (IAEG)
Commission on Landslides and Other Mass Move-
ments continued its work on terminology. The
declaration by the United Nations of the Inter-
national Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction
(1990-2000) prompted the IAEG Commission's
Suggested Nomenclature for Landslides (1990) and
the creation of the WP/WLI by the International
Geotechnical Societies and the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO). The Working Party, formed from the
IAEG Commission, the Technical Committee on
Landslides of the International Society for Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, and nom-
inees of the International Society for Rock Me-
chanics, published Directory of the World Landslide
Inventory (Brown et al. 1992) listing many workers
interested in the description of landslides world-
wide. The Working Party has also prepared the
Multilingual Landslide Glossary, which will encour-
age the use of standard terminology in describing
landslides (WP/WLI 1993b). The terminology
suggested in this chapter is consistent with the sug-
gested methods and the glossary of the UNESCO
Working Party (WP/WLI 1990, 1991, 1993a,b).
2.FORMING NAMES
The criteria used in the classification of landslides
presented here follow Varnes (1978) in emphasiz-
ing type of movement and type of material. Any
landslide can be classified and described by two
nouns: the first describes the material and the sec-
ond describes the type of movement, as shown in
Table 3-1 (e.g., rock fall, debris flow).
The names for the types of materials are un-
changed from Varnes's classification (1978): rock,
debris, and earth. The definitions for these terms are
given in Section 7. Movements have again been
divided into five types: falls, topples, slides, spreads,
and flows, defined and described in Section 8. The
sixth type proposed by Varnes (1978, Figure 2.2),
complex landslides, has been dropped from the for-
mal classification, although the term complex has
been retained as a description of the style of activ-
ity of a landslide. Complexity can also be indicated
38 Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation

Table 3-1
Abbreviated Classification of Slope Movements
TYPE OF MATERIAL
TYPE OF ENGINEERING SoiLs
MOVEMENT BEDROCK PREDOMINANTLY COARSE PREDOMINANTLY FINE
Fall Rock fall Debris fall Earth fall
Topple Rock topple Debris topple Earth topple
Slide Rock slide Debris slide Earth slide
Spread Rock spread Debris spread Earth spread
Flow Rock flow Debris flow Earth flow

by combining the five types of landslide in the ways The name of a landslide can become moreelab-
suggested below. The large classification chart orate as more information about the movement
accompanying the previous report (Vames 1978, becomes available. To build up the complete iden-
Figure 2.1) has been divided into separate figures tification of the movement, descriptors are added
distributed throughout this chapter. in front of the two-noun classification using a pre-
ferred sequence of terms. The suggested sequence
Table 3-2 provides a progressive narrowing of the focus of the
Glossary for Forming Names of Landslides
descriptors, first by time and then by spatial loca-
AcnvrrY tion, beginning with a view of the whole landslide,
STATE DISTRIBUTION S1mE continuing with parts of the movement, and finally
defining the materials involved: The recommended
Active Advancing complex
sequence, as shown in Table 3-2, describes activity
Reactivated Retrogressive Composite
Suspended Widening Multiple
(including state, distribution, and style) followed
Inactive Enlarging Successive by descriptions of all movements (including rate,
Dormant Confined Single water content, material, and type).
Abandoned Diminishing This sequence is followed throughout the chap-
Stabilized Moving ter and all terms given in Table 3-2 are highlighted
Relict in bold type and discussed. Second or subsequent
DESCRIPTION OF FIRST MOVEMENT movements in complex or composite landslides
can be described by repeating, as many times as
RATE WATER CONTENT MATERIAL TYPE
necessary, the descriptors used in Table 3-2.
Extremely rapid Dry Rock Fall Descriptors that are the same as those for the first
Very rapid Moist Soil Topple movement may then be dropped from the name.
Rapid Wet Earth Slide For instance, the very large and rapid slope
Moderate Very wet Debris Spread movement that occurred near the town of Frank,
Slow Flow
Very slow
Alberta, Canada, in 1903 (McConnell and Brock
Extremely slow 1904) was a complex, extremely rapid, dry rock
fall—debris flow (Figure 3-1). From the full name of
DESCRIPTION OF SECOND MOVEMENT this landslide at Frank, one would know that both
RATE WATER CONTENT MATERIAL TYPE the debris flow and the rock fall were extremly
rapid and dry because no other descriptors are used
Extremely rapid Dry Rock Fall
Very rapid
for the debris flow.
Moist Soil Topple
Rapid Wet Earth Slide As discussed in Section 4.3, the addition of the
Moderate Very wet Debris Spread descriptor complex to the name indicates the
Slow Flow sequence of movement in the landslide and dis-
Very slow tinguishes this landslide from a composite rock
Extremely slow fall—debris flow, in which rock fall and debris flow
NoTE: Subsequent movements may be described by repeating the above descriptors as movements were occurring, sometimes simultane-
many times as necessary. ously, on different parts of the displaced mass. The
 Landslide Types and Processes 39

FIGURE 3-1
Slide at Frank,
Alberta, Canada
(oblique aerial
photograph from
south). About 4:10
am. on April 29,
1903, about 85
million tonnes of
rock moved down
n.
'i•'
east face of Turtle
Mountain, across
entrance of Frank
.t-., .,. mine of Canadian
American Coal
Company,
Crowsnest River,
southern end of
town of Frank,
main road from
east, and Canadian
Pacific mainline
through Crowsnest
Pass. Displaced
mass continued up
opposite side of
valley before coming
to rest 120 m above
valley floor. Event
lasted about
100 seconds.
N-IOTOGRAPII NAL'LT3IL.
I A Rt1K0I lilt hI I I-IC IM
COI.LECTION OE NATIONAL
AIR PlIOTO LIBRARY WITH
rERI.IISSION or
NATURAL
RESOURCES CANADA

full name of the landslide need only be given once;
subsequent references should then be to the initial
material and type of movement, for example, "the
rock fall" or "the Frank rock fall" for the landslide
at Frank, Alberta.
Several noun combinations may be required to
identify the multiple types of material and move-
ment involved in a complex or composite land-
slide. To provide clarity in the description, a dash
known as an "en dash" is used to link these stages,
as in rock fall—debris flow in the example above.
(An en dash is half the length of a re(:,ular dash and
longer than a hyphen; it is used to remove ambi-
guity by indicating linkages between terms com-
posed of two nouns.)
The full name of a landslide may be ciimber-
some and there is a natural tendency, particularly
among geologists, to establish type examples with
which other landslides may be compared. Shreve
(1968), for instance, referred to the landslide in
Frank, Alberta, as belonging to the Blackhawk type.
It seems clear that type examples should be historic
landslides that have been investigated in detail
shortly after their occurrence and are of continu-
ing interest to landslide specialists. In addition, for
a type example to be useful, other landslides with
the same descriptors should occur in similar mate-
rial. The Blackhawk landslide (Figure 3-2) was a
prehistoric landslide, and thus was not subject to
investigation at its occurrence (Shreve 1968). It is
therefore not a suitable type example; neverthe-
less, it may have been a Frank-type landslide.
Although Vames (1978, 25) discussed "terms
relating to geologic, geomorphic, geographic, or
40 Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation

tions may be unlikely. The inclusion of complex

and composite landslides would increase the num-
ber of type examples to over a billion.

3. LANDSLIDE FEATURES AND GEOMETRY

l3e!uie landslide lypes ale discussed, it is uscful to

- • '4. establish a nomenclattir&. It r ii it vil tir liii RI-
slide features and to discuss the methods of express-
ing the dimensions and geometry of landslides.

3.1 Landslide Features

Varnes (1978, Figure 2.1t) provided an idealized

diagram showing the features for a complex earth
slide—earth flow, which has been reproduced here as
Figure 3-3. More recently, the IAEG Commission
on Landslides (1990) produced a new idealized
landslide diagram (Figure 3-4) in which the van-
otis features are identified by numbers, which are
defined in different languages by referring to the
accompanying tables. Table 3-3 provides the defi-
FIGURE 3-2 climatic setting," he recommended against the nitions in English.
Blackhawk landslide practice of using type examples because the terms The names of the features are unchanged from
view upslope to
"are not informative to a reader who lacks knowl- Varnes's classification (1978). However, Table
south over lobe
of dark marble edge of the locality" (1978, 26). Moreover, type 3-3 contains explicit definitions for the surface of
breccia spread examples are impractical because of the sheer rupture (Figure 3-4, 10), the depletion (16), the
beyond mouth of number required to provide a fairly complete land- depleted mass (17), and the accumulation (18) and
Blackhawk Canyon slide classification. About 100,000 type examples expanded definitions for the surface of separation
on north slope of would be required for all the combinations of (12) and the flank (19). The sequence of the first
San Bernardino descriptors and materials with all the types of nine landslide features has been rearranged to pro-
Mountains in
movement defined in Table 3-2 and in the follow- ceed from the crown above the head of the dis-
southern California.
Maximum width of
ing sections, although admittedly some combina- placed material to the toe at the foot of the
lobe is 2 to 3 km;
height of scarp at
near edge is about
15 m [Varnes 1978,
Figure 2.28 (Shelton
1966)].
COPYRIUI IT Jot IN S.
SHELTON

FIGURE 3-3
Block diagram of
idealized complex
earth slide—earth
flow (Varnes 1978,
Figure 2.1t).
 Landslide Types and Processes 41

displaced material. This sequence may make these FIGURE 3-4

Landslide features:
features easier to remember.
upper portion, plan
It may also be helpful to point Out that in the
of typical landslide
zone of depletion (14) the elevation of the ground in which dashed line
surface decreases as a result of landsliding, whereas indicates trace of
in the zone of accumulation (15) the elevation of rupture surface on
the ground surface increases. If topographic maps original ground
or digital terrain models of the landslide exist for surface; lower
both before and after movements, the zones of portion, section in
which hatching
depletion and accumulation can be found from the
indicates undisturbed
differences between the maps or models. The vol-
ground and stippling
ume decrease over the zone of depletion is, of shows extent of
course, the depletion, and the volume increase displaced material.
over the zone of accumulation is the accumula- Numbers refer to
tion. The accumulation can be expected to be features defined in
larger than the depletion because the ground gen- Table 3-3 (IAEG
erally dilates during landsliding. Commission
on Landslides 1990).
Table 3-3
Definitions of Landslide Features

NUMBER NAME DEFINITION

1 Crown Practically undisplaced material adjacent to highest parts of main scarp

2 Main scam Steep surface on undisturbed ground at upper edge of landslide caused by movement of
displaced material (13, stippled area) away from undisturbed ground; it is visible part of
surface of rupture (10)
3 Top Highest point of contact between displaced material (13) and main scarp(2)
4 Head Upper parts of landslide along contact between displaced material and main scam (2)
5 Minor scam Steep surface on displaced material of landslide produced by differential movements within
displaced material
6 Main body Part of displaced material of landslide that overlies surface of rupture between main scam
(2) and toe of surface of rupture (II)
7 Foot Portion of landslide that has moved beyond toe of surface of rupture (11) and overlies
original ground surface (20)
8 Tip Point on toe (9) farthest from top (3) of landslide
9 Toe Lower, usually curved margin of displaced material of a landslide, most distant from main
scarp(2)
10 Surface of rupture Surface that forms (or that has formed) lower boundary of displaced material (13) below
original ground surface (20); mechanical idealization of surface of rupture is called slip
surface in Chapter 13
11 Toe of surface of Intersection (usually buried) between lower part of surface of rupture (10) of a landslide
rupture and original ground surface (20)
12 Surface of separation Part of original ground surface (20) now overlain by foot (7) of landslide
13 Displaced material Material displaced from its original position on slope by movement in landslide; forms both
depleted mass (17) and accumulation (18); it is stippled in Figure 3-4
14 Zone of depletion Area of landslide within which displaced material (13) lies below original ground
surface (20)
15 Zone of accumulation Area of landslide within which displaced material lies above original ground surface (20)
16 Depletion Volume bounded by main scam (2), depleted mass (17), and original ground surface (20)
17 Depleted mass Volume of displaced material that overlies surface of rupture (10) but underlies original
ground surface (20)
18 Accumulation Volume of displaced material (13) that lies above original ground surface (20)
19 Flank Undisplaced material adjacent to sides of surface of rupture; compass directions are
preferable in describing flanks, but if left and right are used, they refer to flanks as viewed
from crown
20 Original ground surface Surface of slope that existed before landslide took place
42 Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation

3.2 Landslide Dimensions
The IAEG Commission on Landslides (1990)
utilized the nomenclature described in Section
3.1 (including Figure 3-4 and Table 3-3) to pro-
vide definitions of some dimensions of a typical
landslide. The IAEG Commission diagram is
reproduced here as Figure 3-5. Once again, each
dimension is identified on the diagram by a num-
ber, and these numbers are linked to tables giving
definitions in several languages. Table 3-4 gives the
definitions in English.
The quantities Ld, W, Dd and L ,W, D are
introduced because, with an assumption about the
shape of the landslide, their products lead to esti-
mates of the volume of the landslide that are use-
FIGURE 3-5
Landslide dimensions:
upper portion, plan
of typical landslide
ful in remedial work. For instance, for many rota-
tional landslides, the surface of rupture can be
approximated by half an ellipsoid with semiaxes
D, \/2, L/2. As shown in Figure 3-6(a), the
volume of an ellipsoid is (Beyer 1987, 162)
VOL=-ica'b'c
eps
3
where a, b, and c are semimajor axes. Thus, the
volume of a "spoon shape" corresponding to one-
half an ellipsoid is
VOL=--ita•b•c=ira•b'c
But as shown in Figure 3-6(b), for a landslide
a =D, b =W/2, and c =L /2. Therefore, the volume
of ground displaced by a landslide is approximately
VOL =±rca.b.c=±itDr .W/2.L/2
6 6 r

in which dashed line = 17cD W. L

is trace of rupture 6 r r

surface on original
This is the volume of material before the landslide
ground surface;
lower portion, moves. Movement usually increases the volume of
section in which the material being displaced because the displaced
hatching indicates material dilates. After the landslide, the volume of
undisturbed ground, displaced material can be estimated by1 /6irDdWd Ld
stippling shows (WP/WLI 1990, Equation 1).
extent of displaced A term borrowed from the construction indus-
material, and broken
try, the swell factor, may be used to describe the
line is original ground
surface: Numbers
increase in volume after displacement as a percen-
refer to dimensions tage of the volume before displacement. Church
defined in Table 3-4 (1981, Appendix 1) suggested that a swell factor of
(IAEG Commission 67 percent "is an average figure obtained from
on Landslides 1990). existing data for solid rock" that has been mechan-

Table 3-4
Definitions of Landslide Dimensions

NUMBER NAME DEFINITION

1 Width of displaced mass, W
2 Width of surface of rupture, W
3 Length of displaced mass, Ld
4 Length of surface of rupture, L
5 Depth of displaced mass, Dd
6 Depth of surface of rupture, D,
7 Total length, L
8 Length of center line, L 1
Maximum breadth of displaced mass perpendicular to length, L
Maximum width between flanks of landslide perpendicular to length, L
Minimum distance from tip to top
Minimum distance from toe of surface of rupture to crown
Maximum depth of displaced mass measured perpendicular to
plane containing Wd and Ld
Maximum depth of surface of rupture below original ground surface
measured perpendicular to plane containing W, and L.
Minimum distance from tip of landslide to crown
Distance from crown to tip of landslide through points on original
ground surface equidistant from lateral margins of surface of rupture
and displaced material

(a) Ellipsoid
ically excavated. His estimates may approximate
the upper bound for the swell due to landsliding.
Nicoletti and Sorriso-Valvo (1991) chose an aver-
age dilation of 33 percent, so 4DWL,. = 3DdWd Ld.
More precise information is as yet unavailable.
The ground-surface dimensions of the displaced
material, Ld ,Wd, and of the surface of rupture, \X",
and the total length, L, of the landslide can be
measured with an electronic distance-measuring
instrument; a rangefinder may be sufficiently pre-
cise for a one-person reconnaissance. Measure-
ment of the distance L may present problems
because the toe of the surface of rupture is often
not exposed. Its position can sometimes be esti-
mated from graphical extrapolations of the main
scarp supported by measurements of displacements
within the displaced mass (Cruden 1986). Al-
though Dd and D1 can also be estimated by these
techniques, site investigations provide more pre-
cise methods of locating surfaces of rupture under
displaced material (Hutçhinson 1983).
The total length of the landslide, dimension L
(5, Figure 3-5), is identical with length L, "the
maximum length of the slide upslope," shown in
Figure 3-3 (Vames 1978); both are the straight-
line distances from crown to tip. Readers are cau-
tioned that several writers define the length of a
landslide in terms of its horizontal extent and fre-
quently use the letter L to define this horizontal
distance in tabulations of observations and in cal-
culations. This use of L is a source of potential con-
fusion and inaccuracy, and readers should make
certain that they can identify the dimension being
specified by L in every case.
It should also be emphasized that it is unlikely
that the displaced material at the tip has traveled
Landslide Types and Processes 43
FIGURE 3-6
(b) Landslide Estimation of
landslide volume
assuming a
half-ellipsoid
shape.
from the crown despite the frequency of this as-
sumption, originally due to Heim (1932). Material
displaced from close to the landslide crown usually
comes to rest close to the head of the landslide
Nicoletti and Sorriso-Valvo (1991) proposed that
an estimate of the "overall runout" of a landslide be
determined by measuring the length of a line con-
structed along the original ground surface equidis-
tant from the lateral margins of the displaced
material. However, such measurements may not
have immediate physical significance and 'are also
more difficult and imprecise than measurements of
L. The length of the landslide measured through
these central points is called the length of center line,
L 1. Note that L 1 will increase with the number of
points surveyed on the center line, and the ratio
L 1 /L will increase with the curvature of the center
line in plan and section.
The difference in elevation between the crown
and the tip of the landslide may be used to deter-
mine H, the height of the landslide. Combining
estimates of H and L allows computation of the
travel angle cx, as shown by Figure 3-7. If the tip is
visible from the crown, the travel angle can be mea-
FIGURE 3-7
Definition of
travel angle (a)
of a landslide.
 Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation

sured directly with a hand clinometer. The H-value
may be conveniently estimated with an altimeter
when tip and crown are accessible but not visible
from each other. Hutchinson (1988) compiled data
from several different types of debris flows to illus-
trate how debris-flow mobility appears to b6 related
to the travel angle—and to the volume and lithol-
ogy of the displaced material (Figure 3-8).
The measurements discussed above are ade-
quate during reconnaissance for defining the basic
dimensions of single-stage landslides whose dis-
placement vectors parallel a common plane. Such
landslides can be conveniently recorded on a land-
slide report such as that shown in Figure 3-9.
Estimates of landslide volume determined by these
methods are imprecise when topography diverts
the displacing material from rectilinear paths.
FIGURE 3-8 More elaborate surveys and analyses are then nec-
Mobility of essary (Nicoletti and Sorriso-Valvo 1991).
sturzstroms, chalk
debris flows, and
landslides in mine 4. LANDSLIDE ACTIVITY
wastes related to
The broad aspects of landslide activity should be
travel angle (a)
and debris volume investigated and described during initial recon-
(modified from naissance of landslide movements and before more
Hutchinson 1988, detailed examinaçion of displaced materials is
Figure 12). undertaken. The terms relating to landslide age
and state of activity defined by Vames (1978) and
some of his terms defining sequence or repetition
of movement have been regrouped under three
headings:
State of Activity, which describes what is
known about the timing of movements;
Distribution of Activity, which describes
broadly where the landslide is moving; and
Style of Activity, which indicates the manner
in which different movements contribute to the
landslide.
The terms used to define these three characteristics
of landslide activity are given in the top section of
Table 3-2 and are highlighted in bold type the first
time they are used in the following sections.
The reader is cautioned that the following dis-
cussions relate to the terminology proposed by the
UNESCO Working Party (WP/WLI 1990, 1991,
1993a,b) and given in Table 3-2. Other reports and
authors may use classifications that apply different
meanings to apparently identical terms. For exam-
ple, in Chapter 9 of this report, a Unified Landslide
Classification System is introduced that is based on
landslide classification concepts presented by
McCalpin (1984) and Wieczorek (1984). This sys-

60
CHALK
KEY
H DEBRIS Chalk failures forming a talus
1.6 1EX HIBITING I
0 Chalk failures formIng a flow slIde
1 6

21 \ talus
formation +
Flow slide in coal mine waste
0 Flow slIde in kaolinized granite
76 ApproxImate value of H (m)
More mobile Alpine and Cordilleran
sturzstroms (reported by Hsu,1975) -
>
Ce
I-
4-.
45\

ncreasung
9Oowreeof
Tentative
for chalk
envelope1
flows
iIopoIpi
Ibergsturzen(Abele,1 975) 40
0.8 sliding I—

\ \ [3
D'j
I
Zrendlin=orre
.Amobiie sturzstroms
troms
30
>
uJ

--
/' - ,
-.-....
0.4 \ç 82
20
I-
138
085
I I -- 5 10
IKaolinized granite I Mm. volume for -
sturzstroms (Hsu,1975) i
—'K.'
10 3 10 4 105 16 10 7 108 10 9

DEBRIS VOLUME (m3)

 FIGURE 3-9
Proposed standard
LANDSLIDE REPORT landslide report
form.
Inventory Number:

Date of Report:
day month year,

Date of Landslide Occurrence:

day month year

Landslide Locality:

Reporter's Name:

Affiliation:

Address:

Phone:

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Position: Latitude

Longitude

Elevation: crown m a.s.l.

Surface of rupture toe in a.s.l.

tip m a.s.l.

I Geometry: Surface of rupture Displaced Mass

L= Ld= L=

wT = Wd

Dr = Dd=

Volume: V= itL,D,Wj6 or V = Swell factor =

V= m3 x1O'

Damage: Value

Injuries Deaths
46 Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation

tern is compared with a stability classification pro- moving at present were described by Varnes
posed by Crozier (1984). For further information (1978) as suspended.
on such alternative systems, the reader should refer Inactive landslides are those that last moved
to Tables 9-1, 9-2, and 9-6 and the associated text more than one annual cycle of seasons ago. This
in Chapter 9. state can be subdivided. If the causes of movement
remain apparent, the landslide is dormant. How-
4.1 State of Activity ever, if the river that has been eroding the toe of
the moving slope changes course, the landslide is
Figure 3-10 illustrates the several states of activity abandoned (Hutchinson 1973; Hutchinson and
by using an idealized toppling failure as an exam- Gostelow 1976). If the toe of the slope has been
ple. Active landslides are those that are currently protected against erosion by bank armoring or if
moving; they include first-time movements and other artificial remedial measures have stopped
reactivations. A landslide that is again active after the movement, the landslide can be described as
being inactive may be called reactivated. Slides stabilized.
that are reactivated generally move on preexisting Landslides often remain visible in the landscape
shear surfaces whose strength parameters approach for thousands of years after they have moved and
residual (Skempton 1970) or ultimate (Krahn and then stabilized. Such landslides were called ancient
Morgenstern 1979) values. They can be distin- or fossil by Zaruba and Mend (1982, 52), perhaps
guished from first-time slides on whose surfaces of because they represent the skeletons of once-
rupture initial resistance to shear will generally active movements. When these landslides have
approximate peak values (Skempton and Hutch- been covered by other deposits, they are referred
inson 1969). Landslides that have moved within to as buried landslides. Landslides that have clearly
the last annual cycle of seasons but that are not developed under different geomorphic or climatic
conditions, perhaps thousands of years ago, can
be called relict. Road construction in southern
England reactivated relict debris flows that had
occurred under periglacial conditions (Skempton
and Weeks 1976).
Within regions, standard criteria might be
FIGURE 3-10 developed to assit in distinguishing suspended
Sections through landslides from dormant and relict landslides.
topples in different These criteria would describe the recolonization
states of activity: by vegetation of surfaces exposed by slope move-
active—erosion at
ments and the dissection of the new topography by
toe of slope causes
block to topple; drainage. The rate of these changes depends on
suspended— both the local climate and the local vegetation, so
local cracking in these criteria must be used with extreme caution.
crown of topple; Nevertheless, it is generally true that when the
reactivated— main scarp of a landslide supports new vegeta-
another block tion, the landslide is usually dormant, and when
topples;
drainage extends across a landslide without obvi-
dormant—
displaced mass ous discontinuities, the landslide is commonly
begins to regain its relict. However, these generalizations must be con-
tree cover and firmed by detailed study of typical slope move-
scarps are modified ments under local conditions; Chapter 9 provides
by weathering; a systematic approach for such determinations.
stabilized—f luvial Figure 9-7 shows some idealized stages in the evo-
deposition stabilizes
lution of topographic features on suspended, dor-
toe of slope, which
begins to regain its
mant, and relict landslides.
tree cover; and The various states of activity are also defined by
relict—uniform an idealized graph of displacement versus time
tree cover over slope. (Figure 3-11). For an actual landslide, such a graph

can be created by plottiiig differences in the posi-
tion of a target on the displacing material with
time. Such graphs are particularly well suited to
portraying the behavior of slow-moving landslides
because they presuppose that the target is not dis-
placed significantly over the time period during
which measurement takes place. The velocity of
the target can be estimated by the average rate of
displacement of the target over the time period
between measurements.
There is some redundancy in using the descrip-
tions of activity state with those for rate of move-
ment (see Section 5). Clearly, if the landslide has
a measurable rate of movement, it is either active
or reactivated. The state of activity might then be
used to refer to conditions before the current
movements of the landslide. If, for instance, reme-
dial measures had been undertaken on a landslide
that is now moving with moderate velocity, the
landslide might be described as a previously stabi-
lized, moving, moderate-velocity landslide. Landslides
with no discernible history of previous movement
would be described as active.
4.2 Distribution of Activity
Varnes (1978) defined a number of terms that can
be used to describe the activity distribution in a
landslide. Figure 3-12 shows idealized sections
through landslides exhibiting various distributions
of activity.
If the surface of rupture is extending in the direc-
tion of movement, the landslide is advancing,
whereas if the surface of rupture is extending in the
direction opposite the movement of the displaced
material, the landslide is said to be retrogressive. If
the surface of rupture is extending at one or both
lateral margins, the landslide is widening. Move-
ment may be limited to the displacing material or
Landslide Types and Processes 47
FIGURE 3-1 1
(far left)
Displacement of
landslide in different
states of activity.
FIGURE 3-12 (left)
Sections through
landslides showing
different distributions
of activity:
advancing,
retrogressing,
enlarging,
diminishing, and
confined.
In 1-4, Section 2
shows slope after
movement on
rupture surface
indicated by shear
arrow. Stippling
indicates displaced
material.
the surface of rupture may be enlarging, continually
adding to the volume of displacing material. If the
surface of rupture of the landslide is enlarging in
two or more directions, Varnes (1978, 23) sug-
gested the term progressive for the landslide, noting
that this term had also been used for both advanc-
ing and retrogressive landslides. The term is also
currently used to describe the process by which the
surface of rupture extends in some landslides (pro-
gressive failure). The possibility of confusion seems
sufficient now to abandon the term progressive in
favor of describing the landslide as enlarging.
Hutchinson (1988, 9) has drawn attention to con-
fined movements that have a scarp but no visible
surface of rupture in the foot of the displaced mass.
He suggested that displacements in the head of the
displaced mass are taken up by compression and
slight bulging in the foot of the mass.
To complete the possibilities, terms are needed
for landslides in which the volume of material being
displaced grows less with time and for those land-
slides in which no trend is obvious. The term dimin-
ishing for an active landslide in which the volume
of material being displaced is decreasing with time
seems free of undesired implications. A landslide in
which displaced materials continue to move but
whose surface of rupture shows no visible changes
can be simply described as moving. Several types of
48 Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation

landslide may exhibit diminishing behavior. Move-
ment may stop in parts of both rotational slides and
topples after substantial displacements because the
movements themselves reduce the gravitational
forces on the displaced masses. Similarly, move-
ments of rock masses may rapidly dilate cracks in
the masses, cause decreases in fluid pore pressures
within these cracks, and hence decrease rates of
movement. However, it may be premature to con-
clude that the displacing material is stabilizing
because the volume being displaced is decreasing
with time. Hutchinson (1973) pointed out that the
activity of rotational slides caused by erosion at the
toe of slopes in cohesive soils is often cyclic.
4.3 Style of Activity
The style of landslide activity, or the way in which
different movements contribute to the landslide,
FIGURE 3-13
Sections through can be defined by terms originally established by
landslides showing Vames (1978,23). Figure 3-13 shows idealized sec-
different styles of
activity. (1) Complex:
gneiss (A) and
migmatites (I) are
forming topples
caused by valley
incision; alluvial
materials fill valley
bottom; after
weathering further
weakens toppled
material, some of
tions through landslides exhibiting various styles
of activity. Vames defined complex landslides as
those with at least two types of movement. How-
ever, it is now suggested that the term complex be
limited to cases in which the various movements
occur in sequence. For instance, the topple
described by Giraud et al. (1990) and shown as
Figure 3-13(1), in which some of the displaced
mass subsequently slid, is termed a complex rock
topple—rock slide. Not all the toppled mass slid, but
no significant part of the displaced mass slid with-
out first toppling. Some of the displaced mass may
be still toppling while other parts are sliding.
The term composite, formerly a synonym for
complex, is now proposed to describe landslides in
which different types of movement occur in differ-
ent areas of the displaced mass, sometimes simulta-
neously. However, the different areas of the
displaced mass show different sequences of move-
ment. For example, the structures shown in Figure
3-13(2), first described by Harrison and Falcon
(1934, 1936), were called slide toe topples by
Goodman and Bray (1976), but according to the
classification proposed in this chapter, they are com-
posite rock slide—rock topples. The term composite was
introduced by Prior et al. (1968, 65, 76) to describe
mudflows in which "slipping and sliding. . . occur in
intimate association with flowing" and "the mater-
ial . . . behaves as a liquid and flows rapidly between
confining marginal shears." In the proposed naming
convention, such movements are composite earth
slides-earth flows and the convention of treating the

!111111111
displaced mass
topographically higher of the two movements as the
moves by sliding
(modified from first movement and the lower of the two movements
Giraud et at. 1990). as the second movement was adopted.
Composite: A multiple landslide shows repeated movements
limestones have of the same type, often following enlargement of
slid on underlying the surface of rupture. The newly displaced masses
shales, causing Section Plan are in contact with previously displaced masses
toppling failures
and often share a surface of rupture with them. In
below toe of slide
rupture surface
a retrogressive, multiple rotational slide, such as that
(modified from Cl
shown in Figure 3-14, two or more blocks have
Harrison and each moved on curved surfaces of rupture tangen-
Falcon 1934). tial to common, generally deep surfaces of rupture
Successive: (Eisbacher and Clague 1984).
later landslide (AB) A successive movement is identical in type
is same type as to an earlier movement but in contrast to a multi-
landslide CD but
does not share
ple movement does not share displaced material
displaced material or a surface of rupture with it [Figure 3-13(3)].
or rupture surface. According to Skempton and Hutchinson (1969,
Single. 297), "successive rotational slips consist of an
 Landslide Types and Processes 49

( cyv

Comoosite

assembly of individual shallow rotational slips." in its lower limit. These two limits now span 10 FIGURE 3-14 (above)
Hutchinson (1967, 116) commented that "irregu-. orders of magnitude. Interpretation of the scale Map view and
lar successive slips which form a mosaic rather was aided by Morgenstern's (1985) analogy to the cross section of
Mercalli scale of earthquake intensity. He pointed typical retrogressive,
than a stepped pattern in plan are also found."
multiple rotational
Single landslides consist of a single movement out that the effects of a landslide can be sorted into
slide (Eisbacher
of displaced material, often as an unbroken block six classes corresponding approximately to the and Clague 1984,
[Figure 3-13(4)]. For instance, Hutchinson (1988) six fastest movement ranges of Varnes's scale. Figure 10).
described single topples in which a single block
moved and contrasted these with multiple topples
(Figure 3-15). Single landslides differ from the
other styles of movement, which require disrup- (a) Single Topple
tion of the displaced mass or independent move-
ments of portions of the mass.

5. RATE OF MOVEMENT

The previous rate-of-movement scale provided by ubstratu!

Varnes (1978, Figure 2.1u) is shown here as Figure
3-16. This scale is unchanged from Varnes's origi- (b) Multiple Topples
nal scale (1958) except for the addition of the -41

equivalent SI units, which range from meters per

second to millimeters per year. Varnes (1958) did
not discuss the divisions of the scale, then given in
units ranging from feet per second to feet per 5 HWM
/;7E
years; the scale probably represented a codification LW M A B LWM

of informal practice in the United States at the

time. Nem 6ok et al. (1972) suggested a fourfold
division of a similar range of velocities.
Figure 3-17 presents a modified scale of land-
slide velocity classes. The divisions of the scale
have been adjusted to increase in multiples of 100
by a slight increase in its upper limit and a decrease
FIGURE 3-15
Comparison of (a) single topple (Hutchinson 1988) with (b) multiple
topples [modified from Varnes 1978, Figure 2.1dl (de Freitas and
Watters 1973)].
50 Lands/ides: Investigation and Mitigation

FIGURE 3-16 Velocity Description Typical An added seventh class brings these effect classes
Varnes landslide (ft/sec) Velocity into correspondence with the divisions of the
movement scale velocity scale.
(Varnes 1978,
Figure 2.1u). 102 - Extremely The Mercalli scale is based on descriptions of
Rapid local effects of an earthquake; degrees of damage
101 - _____________ - 1 Oft/sec = 3 rn/sec can be evaluated by investigating a house or a sec-
100 -
tion of a street. Yet the intensity value can be cor-
Very Rapid related with the total energy release of the event
10-1 - because both local damage and the area affected are
lft/min = 0.3 rn/mm related to the magnitude of the earthquake. The sit-
uation is different for landslides. Small, rapid debris
Rapid
avalanches are known to have caused total destruc-
tion and loss of lives. In contrast, a large slope
10
5ft/day = 1.5 rn/day movement of moderate velocity can have much less
1-5— Moderate serious effects because it can be avoided or the
- 5ft/mo = 1.5 rn/mo structures affected can be evacuated or rebuilt. It is
10-6
- Slow suggested that a measure of landslide risk should
5ft/yr = 1.5 rn/yr include both the area affected and the velocity; the
Very Slow product of these two parameters is approximately
1 08_ proportional to the power release of the landslide.
- 1ft/5yr = 60 mm/yr
10 9 _ Extremely
Varnes (1984) drew attention to the United
Slow Nations Disaster Relief Organization terminology
in which the specific risk, R,, or the expected degree
of loss due to landsliding or any other natural phe-
nomenon, can be estimated as the product of the
hazard (H) and the vulnerability (V). The hazard is
Velocity Description Velocity Typical the probability of occurrence of the phenomenon
Class (mm/sec) Velocity within a given area; the vulnerability is the degree
of loss in the given area of elements at risk: popula-
7 Extremely tion, properties, and economic activities. The vul-
Rapid nerability ranges from 0 to 1. In this terminology
-5x103 5 rn/sec the vulnerability of the landslide might well
increase with velocity because it can be expected
6 Very Rapid
that extremely rapid landslides would cause greater
5x101 3 rn/mm loss of life and property than slow landslides.
A parameter that is difficult to quantify is the
5 Rapid
internal distortion of the displaced mass. Struc-
- 5x10 1.8 rn/hr
tures on a moving mass generally are damaged
in proportion to the internal distortion of their
4 Moderate
foundations. For example, the Lugnez slope in
- 5x 1 13 rn/month
Switzerland (Huder 1976) is a 25-km2 area mov-
ing steadily downward at a 15-degree angle at a
3 Slow velocity as high as 0.37 rn/year. The movements
have been observed by surveying since 1887. Yet
-5x10 5 1.6 rn/year
in the six villages on the slope with 300-year-old
2 Very Slow stone houses and churches with bell towers, none
of these structures have suffered damage when dis-
- 5x10 7 16 mm/year
placed because the block is moving without
FIGURE 3-17 1 Extremely distortion. Damage will also depend on the type
Slow
Proposed landslide of landslide, and each type may require separate
velocity scale. consideration.
 Landslide Types and Processes 51

Landslide velocity is a parameter whose destruc- Table 3-5

tive significance requires independent definition.
Table 3-5 defines the probable destructive signifi-
cance of the seven velocity classes on the new
landslide velocity scale (Figure 3-17). Several case
histories in which the effects of landslides on
humans and their activities have been well
described and for which the landslide velocities are
also known are given in Table 3-6, which suggests
a correlation between vulnerability and landslide
velocity. An important limit appears to lie
between very rapid and extremely rapid move-
ment, which approximates the speed of a person
running (5 m/sec). Another important boundary
is between the slow and very slow classes (1.6
rn/year), below which some structures on the land-
slide are undamaged. Terzaghi (1950, 84) identi-
fied as creep those slope movements that were
"proceeding at an imperceptible rate. . . . Typical
creep is a continuous movement which proceeds
at an average rate of less than a foot per decade.
Definition of Probable Destructive Significance of Landslides of Different
Velocity Classes
LANDSLIDE
VELOCITY
CLASS PROBABLE DESTRucTIvE SIGNIRcANcE
Catastrophe of major violence; buildings destroyed by
impact of displaced material; many deaths; escape unlikely
Some lives lost; velocity too great to permit all persons to
escape
5 Escape evacuation possible; structures, possessions, and
equipment destroyed
4 Some temporary and insensitive structures can be
temporarily maintained
3 Remedial construction can be undertaken during
movement; insensitive structures can be maintained with
frequent maintenance work if total movement is not large
during a particular acceleration phase
2 Some permanent structur6 undamaged by movement
1 Imperceptible without instruments; construction possible
with precautions

Table 3-6
Examples of Landslide Velocity and Damage

LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE ESTIMATED

VELOCITY NAME OR LANDSLIDE
CLASS LOCATION REFERENCE VELOCITY DAMAGE

7 Elm Heim (1932) 70m/sec . 115 deaths

7 Goldau Heim (1932) 70 rn/sec 457 deaths
7 Jupille Bishop (1973) 31 rn/sec 11 deaths, houses destroyed
7 Frank McConnell and Brock (1904) 28 rn/sec 70 deaths
7 Vaiont Mueller (1964) 25 rn/sec 1,900 deaths by indirect damage
7 Ikuta Engineering News Record (1971) 18 rn/sec 15 deaths, equipment destroyed
7 St. Jean Vianney Tavenas et al. (1971) 7 rn/sec 14 deaths, structures destroyed
6 Aberfan Bishop (1973) 4.5 rn/sec 144 deaths, some buildings
damaged
5 Panama Canal Cross (1924) 1 m/min Equipment trapped, people
escaped
4 Handlova Zaruba and Mend (1969) 6 rn/day 150 houses destroyed, complete
evacuation
3 Schuders Huder (1976). 10 rn/year Road maintained with difficulty
3 Wind Mountain Palmer (1977) 10 rn/year Road and railway require frequent
maintenance, buildings adjusted
periodically
2 Lugnez Huder (1976) 0.37 rn/year Six villages on slope undisturbed
2 Little Smoky Thomson and Hayley (1975) 0.25 rn/year Bridge protected by slip joint
2 Klosters Haefeli (1965) 0.02 rn/year Tunnel maintained, bridge
protected by slip joint
2 Ft. Peck Spiliway Wilson (1970) 0.02 rn/year Movements unacceptable,
slope flattened
52 Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation

Higher rates of creep movement are uncommon."
Terzaghi's rate is about 10 mm/sec. The limit of
perceptible movements on the scale given in
Figure 3-17 and Table 3-5 is conservatively lower
than Terzaghi's. Still lower rates of movement can
be detected with appropriate instrumentation
(Kostak and Cruden 1990).
Vames (1978, 17) pointed out that "creep has
come to mean different things to different persons,
and it seems best to avoid the term or to use it in
a well-defined manner. As used here, creep is con-
sidered to have a meaning similar to that used in
the mechanics of materials; that is, creep is simply
deformation that continues under constant stress."
The term creep should be replaced by the appro-
priate descriptors from Figure 3-17, either very
slow or extremely slow, to describe the rate of
movement of landslides.
Estimates of landslide velocities can be made by
repeated surveys of the positions of displaced
objects (Thomson and Hayley 1975; Huder 1976),
by reconstruction of the trajectories of portions of
the displaced mass (Heim 1932; McConnell and
Brock 1904; Ter-Stepanian 1980), by eyewitness
observations (Tavenas et al. 1971), by instrumen-
tation (Wilson 1970; Wilson and Mikkelsen 1978),
and by other means. The Colorado Department of
Transportation experimented with the use of time-
lapse photography to document the movement of a
FIGURE 3-18 relatively slow-moving but very large landslide.
Mudslide fabric and The estimates reported were usually the peak veloc-
associated variability ities of substantial portions of the displaced masses;
in water content these estimates are suitable for damage assessments.
(modified from Rates of movement will differ within the displaced
Hutchinson 1988, mass of the landslide with position, time, and the
Figure 9). period over which the velocity is estimated. Such
Location of
Typical water-content
water-content values for London Clay
differences argue against very precise reports of
landslide velocity in reconnaissance surveys.
6. WATER CONTENT
Varnes (1978) suggested the following modifica-
tions to terms first proposed by Radbruch-Hall
(1978) to describe the water content of landslide
materials by simple observations of the displaced
material:
Dry: no moisture visible;
Moist: contains some water but no free water;
the material may behave as a plastic solid but
does not flow;
Wet: contains enough water to behave in part
as a liquid, has water flowing from it, or supports
significant bodies of standing water; and
Very wet: contains enough water to flow as a
liquid under low gradients.
These terms may also provide guidance in esti-
mating the water content of the displaced materi-
als while they were moving. However, soil or rock
masses may drain quickly during and after dis-
placement, so this guidance may be qualitative
rather than quantitative. Individual rock or soil
masses may have water contents that differ con-
siderably from the average water content of the
displacing material. For example, Hutchinson
(1988) noted that debris slides (which Hutchinson
termed mudslides) generally were composed of
materials that exhibited a fabric or texture con-
sisting of lumps of various sizes in a softened clay
matrix. Samples taken from different portions of
this fabric had considerably different water con-
tents, with lumps having much lower water con-
tents than that of the matrix (Figure 3-18).

-
sample
7. MATERIAL
.. Site A Site B
(Beltinge) (Sheppey) According to Shroder (1971) and Vames (1978),
• \Overall the material contained in a landslide may be
Sample 43% 48% described as either rock, a hard or firm mass that
'Lump 41% 34%
was intact and in its natural place before the initi-
ation of movement, or soil, an aggregate of solid
...General
particles, generally of minerals and rocks, that
• Matrix 46% 52%
either was transported or was formed by the weath-
o
- —True Matrix ?(>46%) ?(>52%)
ering of rock in place. Gases or liquids filling the
pores of the soil form part of the soil.
I' Soil is divided into earth and debris (see Table
3-1). Earth describes material in which 80 percent
 Landslide Types and Processes 53

or more of the particles are smaller than 2 mm, the

upper limit of sand-size particles recognized by
most geologists (Bates and Jackson 1987). Debris
contains a significant proportion of coarse mater-
ial; 20 to 80 percent of the particles are larger than
2 mm, and the remainder are less than 2 mm. This
division of soils is crude, but it allows the material
to be named by a swift and even remote visual
inspection.
The terms used should describe the displaced
material in the landslide before it was displaced.
The term rock fall, for instance, implies that the
displacing mass was a rock mass at the initiation of
the landslide. The displaced mass may be debris
after the landslide. If the landslide is complex and
the type of movement changes as it progresses, the
material should be described at the beginning of
each successive movement. For instance, a rock
fall that was followed by the flow of the displaced
material can be described as a rock fall—debris flow.

8. TYPE OF MOVEMENT

The kinematics of a landslide—how movement is

distributed through the displaced mass—is one of
the principal criteria for classifying landslides.
However, of equally great importance is its use as a
major criterion for defining the appropriate response
to a landslide. For instance, occasional falls from a
rock cut adjacent to a highway may be contained by
a rock fence or similar barrier; in contrast, toppling
from the face of the excavation may indicate ad-
versely oriented discontinuities in the rock mass
that require anchoring or bolting for stabilization.
In this section the five kinematically distinct
types of landslide movement are described in the
sequence fall, topple, slide, spread, and flow
(Figure 3-19). Each type of landslide has a number
of common modes that are frequently encountered extremely rapid. Except when the displaced mass FIGURE 3-19
in practice and that are described briefly, often has been undercut, falling will be preceded by Types of landslides:
with examples of some complex landslides whose small sliding or toppling movements that separate (a) fall, (b) topple,
first or initial movements were of that particular the displacing material from the undisturbed mass. (c) slide, ( spread,
type. These descriptions show how landslides of (e) flow. Broken
Undercutting typically occurs in cohesive soils or
that type may evolve. lines indicate original
rocks at the toe of a cliff undergoing wave attack ground surfaces;
or in eroding riverbanks. arrows show portions
8.1 FaIl of trajectories of
individual particles
A fall starts with the detachment of soil or rock 8.1.1 Modes of Falling of displaced mass
from a steep slope along a surface on which little [modified from
or no shear displacement takes place. The mater- Observations show that the forward motion of Varnes 1978, Figure
ial then descends mainly through the air by falling, masses of soil or rock is often sufficient for free fall 2.1 (Zaruba and
bouncing, or rolling. Movement is very rapid to if the slopes below the masses exceed 76 degrees Mend 1969)].
54 Lands/ides: Investigation and Mitigation
(0.25:1). The falling mass usually strikes a slope
inclined at less than this angle (Ritchie 1963),
which causesbouncing. Rebound from the impact
will depend on material properties, particularly
restitution coefficients, and the angle between the
slope and the trajectory of the falling mass (Hungr
and Evans 1988). The falling mass may also break
up on impact.
On long slopes with angles at or below 45
degrees (1:1), particles will have movement paths
dominated by rolling. There is a gradual transition
to rolling from bouncing as bounces shorten and
incidence angles decrease. Local steepening of the
slope may again project rolling particles into the
air, restarting the sequence of free fall, bouncing,
and rolling (Hungr and Evans 1988).
8.1.2 Complex Falls
Sturzstroms are extremely rapid flows of dry debris
created by large falls and slides (Hsu 1975). These
flows may reach velocities over 50 m/sec. Sturzs-
troms have also been called rock-fall avalanches
(Varnes 1958) and rock avalanches (Evans et al.
1989; Nicoletti and Sorriso-Valvo 1991). Two
examples of historic sturzstroms in Switzerland,
the Rossberg landslide of 1806 and the Elm land-
slide of 1881, are discussed in Chapter 1. Hsu
(1975) suggested that 5 million m3 is the lower
limit of the volume of significant sturzstroms, but
Hutchinson (1988) demonstrated that falls in
high-porosity, weak European chalk rocks with
volumes two orders of magnitude smaller have the
same exceptional mobility because of collapse of
the pores on impact and consequent high pore-
water. pressures. Some of Hutchinson's data are
reproduced in Figure 3-19.
The motion of sturzstroms probably depends on
turbulent grain flow with dispersive stresses arising
from momentum transfer between colliding grains.
Such a mechanism does not require the presence
of a liquid or gaseous pore fluid and can therefore
explain lunar and Martian sturzstroms. Van Gassen
and Cruden (1989) showed that the motion of the
complex, extremely rapid, dry rock fall—debris flow
that occurred near the town of Frank, Alberta,
Canada, in 1903 (see Figure 3-1) could be explained
reasonably well by momentum exchange between
the moving particles and measured coefficients of
friction.
8.2 Topple
A topple [Figure 3-19(b)] is the forward, rotation
out of the slope of a mass of soil or rock about a
point or axis below the center of gravity of the dis-
placed mass. Toppling is sometimes driven by grav-
ity exerted by material upslope of the displaced
mass and sometimes by water or ice in cracks in the
mass. Topples may lead to falls or slides of the dis-
placed mass, depending on the geometry of the
moving mass, the geometry of the surface of sepa-
ration, and the orientation and extent of the kine-
matically active discontinuities. Topples range
from extremely slow to extremely rapid, sometimes
accelerating throughout the movement.
8.2.1 Modes of Toppling
Flexural toppling was described by Goodman and
Bray as
occurring in rocks with one preferred disconti-
nuity system, oriented to present a rock slope
with semi-continuous cantilever beams.
Continuous columns break in flexure as they
bend forward.... Sliding, undermining or ero-
sion of the toe (of the displaced mass) lets the
failure begin and it retrogresses backwards with
deep, wide tension cracks. The lower portion
of the slope is covered with disoriented and dis-
ordered blocks. . . . The outward movement of
each cantilever produces interlayer sliding
(flexural slip) and. . . back-facing scarps (obse-
quent scarps). . . . It is hard to say where the
base of the disturbance lies for the change is
gradual. . . . Flexural toppling occurs most
notably in slates, phyllites and schists. (Good-
man and Bray 1976, 203)
A flexural topple in the proposed classification is a
retrogressive, complex rock topple—rock fall. Typical
examples are shown in Figures 3-20(a) and 15-16.
In contrast, block toppling occurs
where the individual columns are divided by
widely-spaced joints. The toe of the slope with
short columns, receives load from overturning,
longer columns above. This thrusts the toe
columns forward, permitting further toppling.
The base of the disturbed mass is better defined
than in the case of flexural toppling; it consists
of a stairway generally rising from one layer to
 Landslide Types and Processes 55

the next. The steps of this stairway are formed

by cross-joints. . . . New rock breakage
occurs much less markedly than in flexural
topples.. . . Thick-bedded sedimentary rocks
such as limestones and sandstones, as well
as columnar-jointed volcanics exhibit block-
toppling. (Goodman and Bray 1976, 203)

Typical examples of block toppling are shown in

Figure 15-16.
Chevron topples are block topples in which the
dips of the toppled beds are constant and the
change of dip is concentrated at the surface of rup-
ture (Cruden et al. 1993). This mode was named
from its resemblance to chevron folds (Ramsay
1967, 436). Chevron topples occur on steeper
slopes than other block topples. The surface of
rupture is often a sliding surface [Figure 3-20(b)]
forming a complex rock topple—rock slide.
Block-flexure toppling is characterized by

pseudo-continuous flexure of long columns

through accumulated motions along numerous
cross joints. Sliding is distributed along several
joint surfaces in the toe [of the displaced mass]
while sliding and overturning occur in close
association through the rest of the mass.
(Goodman and Bray 1976, 204)

Sliding occurs because accumulated overturning

steepens the cross joints. There are fewer edge-to-
face contacts than in block toppling but still
enough to form "a loosened, highly open . . . dis-
turbed zone [displaced mass].... Interhedded sand-
stone and shale, interbedded chert and shale and
thin-bedded limestone exhibit block flexure top-
pling" (Goodman and Bray 1976, 204). Typical
block-flexure topple examples are shown in Figures
3-20(c) and 15-16. FIGURE 3-20
Three modes of toppling. (a) Flexural: cracks indicate tension-crack topple;
fallen blocks below topple show movement is complex rock topple—rock
8.2.2 Complex and Composite Topples
fall. (b) Chevron: multiple block topple; hinge surface of chevron may
develop into surface of rupture of slide forming complex multiple rock
A complex rock topple—rock slide is shown in Figure
topple—rock slide. (c) Block-flexure.
3-130). This cross section of the La Clapière land-
slide was described by Giraud et al. as follows:
result of deformation of the massif. (Giraud
Several distinct movements may be identified et al. 1990, 250)
as the phenomenon progresses, along with a
modification of water flows within the rock Goodman and Bray (1976) identified four com-
mass, due to considerable changes in perme- posite landslide modes in which toppling was
ability over time and probably in space as a caused by earlier sliding. These landslide condi-
56 Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation
dons are discussed in detail in Chapter 15 and are
illustrated in Figure 15-17. A slide head topple
occurs as blocks from the crown of the slide topple
onto the head of the displaced mass. According to
the naming convention, such a landslide is a com-
posite rock slide—retrogressive rock topple.
Rotational sliding of earth or debris above a
steeply dipping sedimentary rock mass can cause
slide base toppling as the sliding induces shear forces
in the top of the rock mass (Goodman and Bray
1976). The resulting landslide is, according to
the proposed naming convention, a composite earth
slide—advancing rock topple.
Toppling below the toe of the surface of rupture
of a rock slide may be caused by load transmitted
from the slide. Such a failure is called a slide toe top-
ple (Goodman and Bray 1976). According to the
proposed naming convention, it is a composite
rock slide—rock topple.
The formation of extension cracks in the crown
of a landslide may create blocks capable of top-
pling, or a tension crack topple (Goodman and Bray
1976). According to the proposed naming con-
vention, this is a retrogressive multiple topple, per-
haps forming part of a composite fall or slide. Such
failures may also occur in cohesive soils being
undercut along streambanks (Figure 3-21).
8.3 Slide
A slide is a downslope movement of a soil or rock
mass occurring dominantly on surfaces of rupture
or on relatively thin zones of intense shear strain.
Movement does not initially occur simultaneously
over the whole of what eventually becomes the
surface of rupture; the volume of displacing mate-
rial enlarges from an area of local failure. Often the
FIGURE 3-21
Debris topple first signs of ground movement are cracks in the
(Varnesi 978, original ground surface along which the main scarp
Figure 2.1 e). of the slide will form. The displaced mass may slide
beyond the toe of the surface of rupture covering
the original ground surface of the slope, which
then becomes a surface of separation.
8.3.1 Modes of Sliding
Varnes (1978) emphasized the distinction between
rotational and translational slides as significant for
stability analyses and control methods. That dis-
tinction is retained in this discussion. Figure 3-22
shows two rotational slides and three translational
slides. Translational slides frequently grade into
flows or spreads.
Rotational slides (Figure 3-23) move along a sur-
face of rupture that is curved and concave. If the
surface of rupture is circular or cycloidal in profile,
kinematics dictates that the displaced mass may
move along the surface with little internal defor-
mation. The head of the displaced material may
move almost vertically downward, whereas the
upper surface of the displaced material tilts back-
ward toward the scarp. If the slide extends for a
considerable distance along the slope perpendicu-
lar to the direction of motion, the surface of rup-
ture may be roughly cylindrical. The axis of the
cylindrical surface is parallel to the axis about
which the slide rotates. Rotational slides in soils
generally exhibit a ratio of depth of the surface of
rupture to length of the surface of rupture, D /L
(see Table 3-4 and Figure 3-5 for definitions
of these dimensions), between 0.15 and 0.33
(Skempton and Hutchinson 1969).
Because rotational slides occur most frequently
in homogeneous materials, their incidence in fills
has been higher than that of other types of move-
ment. Natural materials are seldom uniform, how-
ever, and slope movements in these materials
commonly follow inhomogeneities and disconti-
nuities (Figure 3-24). Cuts may cause movements
that cannot be analyzed by methods used for rota-
tional slides, and other more appropriate methods
have been developed. Engineers have concen-
trated their studies on rotational slides.
The scarp below the crown of a rotational slide
may be almost vertical and unsupported. Further
movements may cause retrogression of the slide
into the crown. Occasionally, the lateral margins
of the surface of rupture may be sufficiently high
and steep to cause'the flanks to move down and
into the depletion zone of the slide. Water finding
its way into the head of a rotational slide may con-
 Landslide Types and Processes 57

FIGURE 3-22
Examples of
rotational and
translational slides:
(a) rotational rock
slide; (b) rotational
earth slide;
(c) translational rock
slide (upper portion
is rock block slide);
(a) debris slide;
(e) translational earth
block slide[Varnes
1978, Figures 2.1g,
2.1i, 2.1j2, 2.1k, 2.11
(Hansen 1965)].

tribute to a sag pond in the backward-tilted, dis-

placedmass. This disruption of drainage may keep
the displaced material wet and perpetuate the
•.
slope movements until a slope of sufficiently low r
.
gradient is formed.
In translational slides (Figures 3-22, 3-25, and
\'. S-S .,• S
3-26) the mass displaces along a planar or undu-
lating surface of rupture, sliding out over the orig-
inal ground surface. Translational slides generally
L I :
k.. S..
are relatively shallower than rotational slides.
Therefore, ratios of D,JL,. for translational slides in ::-''- ,.. S..

soils are typically less than 0.1 (Skempton and

5.5
S.-. •55 -
Hutchinson 1969). The surfaces of rupture of
translational slides are often broadly channel-
shaped in cross section (Hutchinson 1988). - - '- - k Z... .
'- . 4••.S
Whereas the rotation of a rotational slide tends to
restore the displaced mass to equilibrium, transla-
tion may continue unchecked if the surface of FIGURE 3-23
separation is sufficiently inclined. Cut through rotational slide of fine-grained, thin-bedded lake deposits,
As translational sliding continues, the displaced Columbia River valley; beds above surface of rupture have been rotated by
mass may break up, particularly if its velocity or slide to dip in slope (Varnes 1978, Figure 2.7).
58 Lands/ides: Investigation and Mitigation

FIGURE 3-24
I.) SLOPE FAILURE IN HOMOGENEOUS MATERIAL. Ib) SLOPE FAILURE IN NONHOMOGENEOUS MATERIAL.
Rotational slides CIRCULAR ARC. Ill SLIDE WHOLLY ON SLOPE AND SURFACE OF RUPTURE FOLLOWS DIPPING WEAK
(2) SURFACE OF RUPTURE INTERSECTS TOE OF BED.
(Varnes 1978, SLOPE.

Figure 2.5).

r2
\ oft
cl
oy
T r
shall

(c) BASE FAILURE IN HOMOGENEOUS CLAY. SLIP IdI BASE FAILURE IN NONHOMOGENEOUS MATERIAL.
CIRCLE TANGENT TO FIRM BASE, CENTER ON SURFACE OF RUPTURE FOLLOWS BED OF VERY
VERTICAL BISECTOR OF SLOPE. SOFT CLAY.

roben
irm
loy

rrnedId

. Sol I.) SLIDE BENEATH SIDE HILL (II FAILURE WITHIN A SIDEHILL FILL.

CU'\OriinaI ground line

Sand-
stone
Fill
Fill
Coal
Clay

"Shole

FIGURE 3-25 (g) FAILURE OF EMBANKMENT. GRAVEL COUNTER. (h) SLIDE IN FILL INVOLVING UNDERTHRUSTING OF
WEIGHT ON LEFT SIDE PREVENTS SLIDE.
(be/ow) FIRM SURFACE MATERIAL DOWN SLOPE.

Translational slide Fill

of colluvium Firm
Fill
on inclined counterweig !~F.
Il a r
metasiltstone
strata along -40, Soft
zone -

Cocke County,
Stable
Tennessee (Varnes
Firm
1978, Figure 2.11). FEZ

water content increases. The disrupted mass may

then flow, becoming a debris flow rather than a
slide. Translational sliding often follows disconti-
nuities such as faults, joints, or bedding surfaces or
the contact between rock and residual or trans-
ported soils.
Translational slides on single discontinuities in
tuck masses have beeti called block slides (Paiiet
1969) or planar slides (I-lock and Bray 1981). As
e -
Hutchinson (1988) pointed out, there is a transi-
lion from rock slides of moderate displacement that
remain as blocks on the surface of rupture to slides
. -'.. . 41 on steeper and longer surfaces that break up into
debris or transform into sturzstroms. Where the sur-
 Landslide Types and Processes 59

face of rupture follows a discontinuity that is paral-

lel to the slope, the toe of the displaced mass may
form a wedge that overrides or ploughs into undis-
placed material causing folding beyond the toe of
the surface of rupture (Walton and Atkinson
1978). Composite rock slide—rock ropples [Figure
313(2)] or buckles and conned slides may result.
The surface of rupture may be formed by two
discontinuities that cause the contained rock mass
to displace down the line of intersection of the dis-
continuities, forming a wedge slide [Figure 3-27(a)
and Chapter 15, Figures 15-8 through 15-141.
Similarly shaped displaced masses may be bounded
by one discontinuity that forms the main scarp of
the slide and another that forms the surface of rup-
ture. The mode of movement depends on the ori-
entations of the free surfaces relative to the
discontinuitics in the rock masses (Hocking 1976;
Cruden 1978, 1984). Stepped rupture surfaces may
result if two or more sets of discontinuities, such as
bedding surfaces and some joint sets, penetrate the
FIGURE 3-26
rock masses. As shown in Figure 3-27(b), one set
(above)
of surfaces forms the risers of the steps and the Shallow translational
other forms the treads, creating a stepped slide slide that developed
(Kovari and Fritz 1984). on shaly rock slope
Compound slides are intermediate between rota- in Puente Hills of
tional and translational slides and their D IL ratios southern California;
reflect this position (Skempton and Hutchinson slide has low D/L
ratio; note wrinkles
1969). Surfaces of rupture have steep main scarps on surface [Varnes
that may flatten with depth [Figure 3-22(e)]. The 1978, Figure 2.33;
toes of the surfaces of rupture may dip upsiope. (Shelton 1966)].
Displacement along complexly curved surfaces of (X)IYRlGHT JOI INS.
ShELTON
rupture usually requires internal deformation and
shear along surfaces within the displaced material FIGURE 3-27
and results in the formation of intermediate scarps. (left)
Abrupt decreases in downslope dips of surfaces of Wedge and
rupture may be marked by uphill-facing scarps in stepped
displaced masses and the subsidence of blocks of translational
slides.
displaced material to form depressed areas, grabens
[Figure 3-22(e)]. A compound slide often indicates
the presence of a weak layer or the boundary be-
tween weathered and unweathered material. Such erences to a variety of specialized names. Two of
zones control the location of the surface of rupture these names, mudslide and flowslide, are believed to
(Hutchinson 1988). In single compound slides, the be imprecise and ambiguous, and therefore their
width of the grahen may be proportional to the use is not recommended.
depth to the surface of rupture (Cruden et al. 1991). According to Hutchinson, mudslides are

slow-moving, commonly lobate or elongate

8.3.2 Complex and Composite Slides
masses of accumulated debris in a softened
Complex and composite slide movements are clayey matrix which advance chiefly by sliding
common and the literature contains numerous ref- on discrete, bounding shear surfaces. - . - In
Wt Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation
long profile, mudslides are generally bilinear
with a steeper . . . slope down which debris is
fed (by falls, shallow slides and mudslides) to a
more gently-inclined slope. . . . Mudslides are
especially well-developed on slopes containing
stiff, fissured clays, doubtless because of the ease
with which such materials break down to pro-
vide a good debris supply. (Hutchinson 1988,
12-13)
Evidently these movements begin in either
weak rock or earth and retrogress by falls and slides
while advancing by sliding. Hutchinson and Bhan-
dan (1971) suggested that the displaced material,
fed from above onto the mudslide, acted as an un-
drained load. Clearly mudslides are composite or
perhaps complex both in style of activity and in the
breakdown of displaced material into earth or
debris. The displaced material is generally moist,
though locally it may be wet. A mudslide is there-
fore often a retrogressive, composite rock slide—
advancing, slow, moist earth slide. Other mudslide
modes may include single earth slides (Brunsden
1984). The current use of mudslide for several dif-
ferent landslide modes suggests that more precise
terminology should be used where possible.
The term flowslide has been used to describe sud-
den collapses of material that then move consid-
erable distances very rapidly to extremely rapidly.
As Hutchinson (1988) and Eckersley (1990)
pointed out, at least three phenomena can cause
this behavior: (a) impact collapse, (b) dynamic
liquefaction, and (c) static liquefaction. Impact-
collapse flowslides occur when highly porous,
often-saturated weak rocks fall from cliffs, resulting
in destruction of the cohesion of the material and
the generation of excess fluid pressures within the
flowing displaced mass. Clearly these are complex
falls in which the second mode of movement is a
debris flow; if the displaced material is dry debris,
the movement may be a sturzstrom, previously
defined in Section 8.1.2. This mode of movement
can be recognized by both the materials involved
and the topography of the flow.
If the structure of the material is destroyed by
shocks such as earthquakes, saturated material may
liquefy and then flow, sometimes carrying masses of
overlying drier material with it. Such a movement
is a flow or liquefaction spread, which is further
defined in Section 8.4.1. Such movements are
characteristic of bess, a lightly cemented aeolian
silt. Landslides occurring in loosely dumped an-
thropogenic materials, both stockpiles and waste
dumps, have also been termed flowslides. These
loose, cohesionless materials contract on shearing
and so may generate high pore-water pressures after
some sliding (Eckersley 1990). Similar landslides
may also occur in rapidly deposited natural silts and
fine sands (Hutchinson 1988, 14). Since these
movements involve both sliding and then flowage,
they may be better described as complex slide flows.
Because these separate and distinguishable phe-
nomena are comparatively distinct types of land-
slides that may be more accurately described by
standard descriptors, the use of the term flowslide
for all these types of movements is redundant, con-
fusing, and potentially ambiguous.
In contrast, one form of compound sliding fail-
ure appears to warrant a special term. Sags (or sack-
ungen) are deformations of the crests and steep
slopes of mountain ridges that form scarps and
grabens and result in some ridges with double
crests and small summit lakes. Material can be dis-
placed tens of meters at individual scarps. The
state of activity, however, is generally dormant and
may be relict. The term sag may be useful to indi-
cate uncertainty about the type of movement vis-
ible on a mountain ridge.
Movement is often confined, and small bulges
in local slopes are the only evidence of the toes of
the displaced material. Detailed subsurface inves-
tigations of these features are rare, and classifica-
tion should await this more detailed exploration.
As Hutchinson (1988,8) demonstrated, the geom-
etry of the scarps (which often face uphill) may be
used to suggest types of movement, which may
include slides, spreads, and topples. The modes of
sagging depend on the lithobogy of the displaced
material and the orientation and strength of the
discontinuities in the displacing rock mass. Vames
et at. (1989, 1) distinguished
"Massive, strong (although jointed) rocks lying
on weak rocks,"
"Ridges composed generally of metamorphosed
rocks with pronounced foliation, schistosity or
cleavage," and
"Ridges composed of hard, but fractured, crys-
talline igneous rocks."
Sags of the first type are usually spreads
(Radbruch-Hall 1978; Radbruch-Hall et al. 1976),
 Landslide Types and Processes

which are discussed in Section 8.4. Sags in foliated FIGURE 3-28

rrd Plan of Ames slide
metamorphic rocks are often topples, and thus are 1po,,d near Telluride,
discussed in Section 8.2, although bedrock flow ZONE A
Colorado. This
Mon.,n.,,t dtinfly by Io,ge,
may also occur (see Section 8.5). Sags in crys- wole don,ping along dip
surfaces A" - enlarging complex
talline igneous rocks (Varnes et al. 1989, 22) were .
A A', A'
earth slide—earth
modeled by a plasticity solution for "gravity-
PrIncIpot dotnp eriitt
8,8' — flow occurred in till
Narrow glomp oni, with
rpendicular to
::of mwn slump units
/
induced deformation of a slope yielding under the length
overlying Mancos
Coulomb criterion." Sags may thus be slides,
of —in slide
C
shale. Crown of
Island' remaining after
slide retrogressed by
spreads, or flows, depending on the extent and downward movement of
unit D from ,raE. P
multiple rotational
distribution of plastic flow within the deforming slides after main
rock mass. - body of displaced
Sags are often associated with glacial features. material moved.
The absence of Pleistocene snow and ice covers, ZONEB
Zone of earth flow; —-— -- — - Surface of rupture
and the resulting loss of the permafrost and high movement ohinfly by
fiowo.
-'
also widened on
pore-water pressures these induced, may account left lateral margin
——

for the present inactivity of many sags. Varnes et [Varnes 1978, Figure
2.10 (modified from
al. (1990) described an active sag in the mountains
Varnes 1949)].
of Colorado. Earthquakes, however, can also pro- Toe of slide ama:ogal
duce uphill-facing scarps along reactivated normal for altered by railroad
reconstructiOn work. , /
•, I
faults. The surface features of sags require careful
investigation before any conclusions can be drawn tOOm

about the cause and timing of slope movement.

Such investigations may be sufficient to allow the
identification of sags as other types of landslides.
In many landslides, the displaced material, ini-
tially broken by slide movements, subsequently
begins to flow (Figure 3-28). This behavior is espe-
cially common when fine-grained or weak materi-
als are involved. These landslides have been
termed slump-earth flows. Slump has been used as a
synonym for a rotational slide, but it is also used to
describe any movement in a fill. It is therefore rec-
ommended that this mode of movement be termed
a complex earth slide—earth flow and that the use of
the term slump be discontinued.
In permafrost regions, distinctive retrogressive,
complex earth slide—earth flows, known as thaw-
slumps (Hutchinson 1988, 21) and bimodal flows
(McRoberts and Morgenstem 1974), develop on
steep earth slopes when icy permafrost thaws and
forms flows of very wet mud from a steep main
scarp. These special landslide conditions are dis-
cussed in more detail in Chapter 25.
8.4 Spread
It is characteristic . . . that a gentle clay slope
which may have been stable for decades or cen-
turies, moves out suddenly along a broad front.
At the same time the terrain in front... heaves
for a considerable distance from the toe. On
investigation, it has invariably been found that
the spreading occurred at a considerable dis-
tance beneath the toe along the boundary
between the clay and an underlying water-
bearing stratum or seam of sand or silt. (Ter-
zaghi and Peck 1948, 366)
Recognition of the phenomenon is considerably
older. One of the three types of landslides distin-
guished by Dana (1877, 74) occurs "when a layer
of clay or wet sand becomes wet and softened by
percolating water and then is pressed Out laterally
by the weight of the superincumbent layers." An
early use of spread to describe this phenomenon is
by Barlow:

The term spread was introduced to geotechnical
engineering by Terzaghi and Peck (1948) to
describe sudden movements on water-bearing
seams of sand or silt overlain by hdmogeneous
clays or loaded by fills:
In a landslip [British term for some types of
landslide], the spreading of some underlying bed
which has become plastic through the percola-
tion of water or for some other cause drags apart
the more solid, intractable beds above and pro-
62 Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation

duces fissures and fractures transverse to the
direction of movement. (Barlow 1888, 786)
Spread is defined here as an extension of a cohe-
sive soil or rock mass combined with a general sub-
sidence of the fractured mass of cohesive material
into softer underlying material. The surface of rup-
ture is not a surface of intense shear. Spreads may
result from liquefaction or flow (and extrusion) of
the softer material. Vames (1978) distinguished
spreads typical of rock, which extended without
forming an identifiable surface of rupture from
movements in cohesive soils overlying liquefied
materials or materials flowing plastically (Figure
3-29). The cohesive materials may also subside,
translate, rotate, disintegrate, or liquefy and flow.
Clearly these movements are complex, but they are
sufficiently common in certain materials and geo-
logical situations that the concept of a spread is
worth recognizing as a separate type of movement.
8.4.1 Modes of Spreading
In block spreads, a thick layer of rock overlies softer
materials; the strong upper layer may fracture and
separate into strips. The soft underlying material is
squeezed into the cracks between the strips, which
may also fill with broken, displaced material
[Figure 3-29(a)]. Typical rates of movement are
extremely slow.
Such movements may extend many kilometers
back from the edges of plateaus and escarpments.
The Needles District of Canyonlands National
Park, Utah, is an example of a block spread (McGill
and Stromquist 1979; Baars 1989). Grabens up to
600 m wide and 100 m deep stretch 20 km along
the east side of Cataract Canyon on the Colorado
River (Figure 3-30). The grabens extend up to 11.
km back from the river. A 450-rn-thick sequence
of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks has been spread
down a regional slope with a 4-degree dip by the
flow of an underlying evaporite that is exposed in
valley anticlines in the Colorado River and its trib-
utaries (Potter and McGill 1978; Baars 1989). This
approximately 60 km3 of displaced material con-
stitutes one of North America's largest landslides.
Liquefaction spreads form in sensitive clays and
silts that have lost strength with disturbances that
damaged their structure [Figures 3-29(c) and
3-31]. These types of landslides are discussed fur-
ther in Chapter 24. Movement is translational and
often retrogressive, starting at a stream bank or a
shoreline and extending away from it. However, if
the underlying flowing layer is thick, blocks may

(a)
1 50.

100
50

FIGURE 3-29 0 500

Rock and earth

spreads: (a), (b) rock
spreads that have (b)
experienced lateral
extension without
well-defined basal
shear surface or
zone of plastic flow
[Varnes 1978, Figure
2.1m2 (Zaruba and (C)
Mend 1969); Figure
2.1m3 (Ostaficzuk Fi,m
1973)]; (c) earth Solt clay with wate,-be
spread resulting silt and sand layers

from liquefaction Fi,m claye

or plastic flow of
subjacent material
(Varnes 1978,
Figure 2.1o).
 Landslide Types and Processes 63

sink into it, forming grahens, and upward flow can

take place at the toe of the displaced mass. Move-
ment can begin suddenly and reach very rapid
velocities:

Spreads are the most common ground failure

during earthquakes. .. . [They] occur in gentler
terrains (commonly between 0.5 per cent [0.3
degrees] and 5 percent [3 degrees]) with lateral
movement of a few meters or so. . . . [S]preads
involve fracturing and extension of coherent
material owing to liquefaction or plastic flow of
subjacent material. . . . [S]preads are primarily
translational although some associated rota-
tion and subsidence commonly occurs. (Andnis
and Youd 1987, 16)

Van Horn (1975) described two movements of

more than 8 km2 in area on very gentle slopes in
flat-lying beds of silty clay, clayey silt, and very fine
sand deposited in prehistoric Lake Bonneville,
Utah. The displaced material forms ridges parallel
to the main scarp of the landslide; distinctive
internal structures include gentle folds, shears, and
intrusions of liquefied sediment.
8.4.2 Complex Spreads
FIGURE 3-30
Geological cross section showing formation of The Grabens in Needles
District of Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Colorado River has carved
Cataract Canyon to within a few meters of top of Paradox Salt beds (IPps),
undercutting inclined layers of overlying Honaker Trail (IPht), Elephant
Canyon (Pec), and Cedar Mesa (Pcm) formations. These formations have
broken up and are moving toward canyon by flowage within salt. Colorado
River follows crest of Meander anticline, a salt-intruded fold located above
a deep-seated fault zone (Baars 1989).

Major deformations in rock strata were found

along many valleys in north-central England dur- -. -
ing the construction of dams in the late 19th cen-
.1..
tury. These deformations occurred where a nearly
horizontal, rigid-joinied cap tuck uveilaid a iltick
layer of stiff-fissured clay or clay shale that in turn
overlaid a more competent stratum. A bending, or
cambering, of the rigid strata caused blocks of this
stratum to dip toward the valley. This bending of
the upper stratum was accompanied by severe
deformation and bulging of the softer lower strata
in the valley floor.
Hutchinson (1991) defined characteristic fea-
tures of cambers and valley bulges as follows:

Marked thinning of the clay substratum as a

result of the transfer of clay into the valley bulge;
Intense folding and distortion in the valley bulge
itself as a result of the meeting of the clay masses
moving in from beneath each valley side;
Sympathetic flexuring of the superincumbent
capping rocks, producing a valleyward camber,
a valley marginal syncline, and an upturn
against the flanks of the bulge; and
FIGURE 3-31
Earth spread—earth flow near Greensboro, Florida. Material is flat-lying,
partly indurated clayey sand of Hawthorn Formation. Length of slide is
275 m from scarp to edge of trees in foreground. Vertical distance is about
15 m from top to base of scarp and about 20 m from top of scarp to toe.
Landslide occurred in April 1948 after a year of unusually heavy rainfall,
including 40 cm in the 30 days preceding landslide [Varnes 1978, Figure
2.19 (modified from Jordan 1949)].
64 Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation

Extension and valleyward toppling of the cap- exaggeration. Figure 3-32(b) is based on a diagram
ping rocks in the camber, resulting in opening of by Hutchinson (1991) that shows the same general
near-vertical joints to form wide-open fissures, section without vertical exaggeration and empha-
termed gulls, in valleyward dips of the camber sizes that the displaced materials are found on
blocks and in the development of dip-and-fault slopes of less than 5 degrees. According to the pro-
structures between camber blocks as a conse- posed naming convention, a camber may be de-
quence of their toppling. scribed as a relict, complex rock spread—rock topple.
Ward (1948) described as a landslide another
The rotation of the dip of the rock blocks pro- complex spread in Britain in which stiff-fissured
duces the slightly arched or convex form popularly clays overlaid fine sands but qualified his descrip-
called a camber. Rotation is made possible by the tion as follows:
extension of "the cap-rock towards the valley pro-
ducing widened joints (called gulls) often infilled So much movement of various types had
by till" (Hutchinson 1988, 19). The cap rock has occurred that it was difficult to trace the move-
spread. The underlying clay exhibits ment of the strata from the upper cliff until it
arrived in the form of mud on the beach some
a brecciated structure, probably frost- induced, 180 feet below.... The underlying fine sand is
in its upper parts, marked thinning as the in a saturated, quick condition under the
valley is approached and intense generally- blocks when they become detached and they
FIGURE 3-32
monoclinal folding in . . . the present valley probably flounder forwards and tilt backwards.
Cambering and
valley bulging at
bottom. . . . The dramatic internal structures (Ward 1948, 36)
Empingham, appear to be the result principally of valley-
England: ward squeezing and extrusion made possible This description suggests that the clay was being
detailed cross by the weakening of the clay stratum by mul- spread by the flow of the sand and thus the move-
section with 4x tiple freezing and thawing.. . . These cambers ment was a type of complex earth spread—debris flow.
vertical exaggeration and valley bulges are believed to be relict
(modified from periglacial features. (Hutchinson 1988, 19) 8.5 Flow
Horswill and Horton
1976); and Cambering and valley bulging affected slopes at A flow is a spatially continuous movement in
generalized
Empingham, England, that were excavated during which surfaces of shear are short-lived, closely
cross section drawn
without vertical the construction of a dam (Horswill and Horton spaced, and usually not preserved. The distribution
exaggeration 1976). Figure 3-32(a) reproduces a portion of Fig- of velocities in the displacing mass resembles that
(modified from ure 5 of Horswill and Horton (1976), which shows in a viscous liquid. The lower boundary of the dis-
Hutchinson 1991). the details of the structures with a fourfold vertical placed mass may be a surface along which appre-

Normal Sub-horizontal
Camber slope.
(a)
Cap rock Dip and

by eroslon)

Cly

- - - - - fleOfdeoobemt!

(b)

rrerresOo
J............_Ptelitu.e PmlIizO.0 roiioc.o—.j
120 120
o 00
togo H,od 80
HeIdI
40
20 Mzrltonr Rock Bad
40 20
Middle Lien Silt, and C1e1,
0
-500 -00 -300 -200 -100 0-100 -200 -300 -400 -500 -600 -700 -800 -900
Darn Cheiroge (n.) Pipolir, Choir09.)...)
 Landslide Types and Processes 65

FIGURE 3-34
ciable differential movement has taken place or a
Channelized
thick zone of distributed shear (Figure 3-33). Thus debris flows:
there is a gradation from slides to flows depending debris flow,
on water content, mobility, and evolution of the debris avalanche,
movement. Debris slides may become extremely and (c) block stream
rapid debris flows or debris avalanches as the dis- (Varnes 1978,
placed material loses cohesion, gains water, or Figures 2.1q1,
2.1q3, 2.1q5).
encounters steeper slopes (Figure 3-34).
Varnes (1978, 19-20) used the terms earth flow
and slow earth flow [Figure 3-33(a)] to describe "the
somewhat drier and slower earth flows in plastic
earth. . . common... wherever there is. . . clay or
weathered clay-bearing rocks, moderate slopes,
and adequate moisture." Weathered bedrock.

Keefer and Johnson (1983) included detailed

Soil etc

studies of the movement of earth flows in the San Bedrock

Francisco Bay area (Figure 3-3 5). They concluded
(Keefer and Johnson 1983, 52): "Although some
internal deformation occurs within earth flows,

(C)

most movement takes place on or immediately

Terraced Letds
adjacent to their boundaries." Their use of earth
Lake flow thus covers landslide modes from slow earth
flow through slow, composite earth slide—earth flow
to slow earth slide. When extensive, striated, or
slickensided lateral margins or surfaces of rupture
are visible, the landslide might well be called an
earth slide; when the displaced mass is strongly FIGURE 3-33
deformed internally, the landslide is probably an Examples of flows:
-\ slow earth flow
&
earth flow. If the same landslide shows both modes
Dry sand
' of deformation, it is clearly a composite earth [Varnes 1978, Figure
\ 2.1r3 (Zaruba and
Fare cdl slide—earth flow. Mend 1969)],
Sand
While defining landslide processes in perma- bess flow, and
frost regions, McRoberts and Morgenstern (1974) dry sand flow
used the term skin flow to describe a rapid to very (Varnes 1978,
rapid slope movement in which a thin layer, or Figures 2.1r5
skin, of thawed soil and vegetation flows or slides and 2.1r4).
Wl Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation

FIGURE 3-35 or may extend as sheets for some distance across a

Earth flow
developing from
initial rotational
earth slide near
Berkeley, California
(Varnes 1978,
Figure 2.22).
over the permafrost table, whereas Hutchinson
(1988, 12) used the term active-layerslide. Seasonal
thaw layers, or active layers, up to a meter or so in
thickness may contain water originally drawn to
the freezing front where it formed segregated ice.
Melting of this ice may generate artesian pore-
water pressures that greatly reduce the resistance
of the active layer to movement. These landslide
conditions are discussed in more detail in Chapter
25. Similar shallow failure may also occur in bess
materials that become saturated or are subjected to
earthquake shaking [Figure 3-33(b)].
Open-slope debris flows form their own path
down a valley side onto the gentler slopes at the
foot. Deposition of levees there may outline a more
sinuous channel. The common, small dry flows of
granular material may be channelized (Figure 3-3 6)
slope [Figure 3-33(h) and 3.37].
Channelzzed flows follow existing channels (Fig-
ures 3-34 and 3-38). As shown in Figure 3-39,
debris flows are often of high density, with over 80
percent solids by weight, and may exceed the den-
sity of wet concrete (Hutchinson 1988). They can
therefore move boulders that are meters in diame-
ter. The mode of flow shown in Figure 3-40 often
occurs during torrential rIlnff following excep-
tional rainfalls. Soils on steep slopes unprotected
by vegetation whose natural cover may have been
destroyed by fire are prone to debris flows. Debris
may be added to small surface streams by erosion
or caving of their banks, increasing the power of
the flows. Coarser material may form natural lev-
ees, leaving the fines in suspension to move down
the channel. Flows can extend many kilometers
before they drop their suspended loads upon enter-
ing lower-gradient channels. The movement may
be in pulses, presumably caused by periodic mobi-
lization of material or by the formation and burst-
ing of dams of debris in the channel.
Pierson and Costa (1987) observed that the
term debris torrent was misleading and gave two
reasons:
First, mountain torrent or debris torrent is used
in European and Japanese literature to mean a
very steep channel, not the material that flows
in it. . . . Second, the term was coined to dif-
ferentiate between coarse debris flows occur-
ring in channels and flows occurring on open
slopes . . . , a criterion that has no rheologic or
other process-specific basis. We suggest that the
usage of the term, debris torrent, be discontin-
ued and the more general term, debris flow,
he used instead with appropriate descriptive
adjectives when specifics are required. (Pierson
and Costa 1987, 10)

FIGURE 3-36 Debris avalanches are larger, extremely rapid,

Dry sand flow in often open-slope flows [Figure 3-34(b)]. The Mt.
Columbia River Huascaran avalanche in Peru (Figure 3-41)
valley; dry sand involved 50 million m3 to 100 million in 3 of rock,
from upper terrace ice, snow, and soil that traveled at velocities of as
:
flowed through . much as 100 rn/sec. In this case, steam and air cush-
notch in cliffs of . . .-
more compact ions were suggested to account for the high veloc-
sand and silt below ity and long distance of the debris travel (Varnes
(Varnes 1978, 1978, 21). However, the contributions of snow and
Figure 2.24). ice to the movement should also be considered.
 Landslide Types and Processes 67

FIGURE 3-37
Shallow dry sand
flow along shore
ffil of Lake Roosevelt,
Washington State;
wave erosion or
saturation of
sediment by lake
water caused thin
- . skin of material to
-.'-- lose support and
5.
ravel off slope,
-.-
- - ----. - - - - - formed on older
-- terrace deposit
-.. L . [Varnes 1978, Figure
2.25 (modified from
- ---- - ;i- - Jones etal. 1961)].

According to Varnes, bedrock flows include 9. LANDSLIDE PROCESSES

"The processes involved in slope movements com-

spatially continuous deformation and surficial
as well as deep creep. . . . [They involve]
extremely slow and generally nonaccelerating
differential movements among relatively intact
units. Movements may (1) be along many shear
surfaces that are apparently not connected; (2)
result in folding, bending, or bulging; or (3)
roughly simulate those of viscous fluids in dis-
tribution of velocities. (Varnes 1978, Figure
2.1, V)
prise a continuous series of events from cause to
effect" (Varnes 1978, 26). In some cases, it may be
FIGURE 3-38
more economical to repair the effects of a landslide Old debris flow in
than to remove the cause; a highway on the crest altered volcanic
of a slope may be relocated rather than armoring rocks west of
the toe of the slope to prevent further erosion. Pahsimeroi River
However, the design of appropriate, cost-effective in south central
remedial measures still requires a clear under- Idaho (Shaller
1991, Figure 8).
standing of the processes that are causing the land- COF'YIUGI IT
slide. Although this understanding may require a JOl-IN S. SHELTON

All the examples given by Varnes (1978) and

reproduced as Figure 3-42 show movements that
may have been initiated by sliding on the bedding
or schistosity of the rock mass. These might all
then be classified as complex slides. Further study
may define the complex modes of movement to
which these examples belong, in which sliding is
followed by buckling (Hu and Cruden 1993).
Clearly, further examples of ledwck uluw t1iould
be explored in more detail before they can be more
than tentatively classified.
A lahar is a debris flow from a volcano. The flow
mobilizes the loose accumulations of tephra (air-
borne solids erupted from the volcano) on the
volcano's slopes. Water for the flow may come
from the ejection of crater lakes, condensations of
erupted steam, the nucleation of water vapor on
erupted particles and its precipitation, and the
melting of snow and ice accumulated on a suffi-
ciently high volcanic cone (Voight 1990).
68 Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation

FIGURE 3-39 No Concentration by Weight, C(%)

Continuous
spectrum of
99 91 80 5040 20 9.1 5.0 0.99
sediment
2.8 r-
concentrations
from sediment-laden Debris Flow
rivers to debris flows Mayflower Gulch o Streamflow (Eephemeral) -
(modified from FO Wet Concrete
Wright wood
Hutchinson 1988,
Figure 15). Surprise Canyon

SAT
_(Lw).w for G=2.60 - 2.75 —
— 1.wG
Rio Reventado

yo Puerco (E)

River (E)

e Colorado River (E)

River

wRuver
Mu df low "(Rpl
bris FIc Hyper

Chung River White

Extreme Ri1 Grande River
1.0 I

1 10 100 1,000 10,000

Water Content, w (%) so

detailed site investigation, a reconnaissance of the

landslide as soon as possible after its occurrence
can allow important observations of the processes
involved. These observations may guide both the
FIGURE 3-40 site investigation and the remedial measures.
Very rapid debris Although Vames (1978) provided a list of the
flow, or debris causes of slides, the aims in this section are less
avalanche, at ambitious. The section follows Varnes's distinction
Franconia Notch, that the three broad types of landslide processes are
New Hampshire, those that
June 24, 1948,
after several days
of heavy rainfall. Increase shear stresses (Section 9.1),
Colluvial soil up to Contribute to low strength (Section 9.2), and
5 m thick moved Reduce material strength (Section 9.3).
down over bedrock
along 450 m of a Common landslide triggering mechanisms are dis-
45-degree slope. cussed at greater length in Chapter 4.
Levees appear at
Processes and characteristics that contribute
lateral margins.
Flow covered US-3
to landslides are summarized in a checklist of land-
(foreground) slide causes arranged in four practical groups ac-
(Varnes 1978, cording to the tools and procedures necessary to
Figure 2.17). begin the investigation (see p. 70). Ground causes
 Landslide Types and Processes

FIGURE 3-41
(top)
NEVADO HUANDOY NEVADO HUASCARAN May31, 1970,
6395m NORTH PEAK SOUTH PEAK
6663m 6767m Huascaran debris
avalanche (Peru)
'A GLACIAL'JV originated at Point A.
Yungay had been
// yPPDu-ERALANCA.

'' \i protected from

'•
r' January 10, 1962,
debris avalanche by
ridge up to 240 m
___._. high (Point B), but
•.: .. k // Area apparently overridden portion of later
by avalanche debris but left
undisturbed suggesting air avalanche over-
cushioning effect topped protective
W (_ ridge. Cemetery Hill
(Point C) was only
E
safe place in Yungay,
some 93 people
escaping to it before
Ro1 avalanche devastated
surrounding area.
Moving at an
average speed of
320 km/hr, debris
arrived at Point D on
Rio Santa 14.5 km
down 1 5-degree
average slope within
3 to 4 min after
can be identified with the customary tools of site starting from north
reconnaissance and investigation. Changes in site peak of Huascaran
morphology over time are apparent from the study (PointA). Debris
of surveys, maps, and aerial photographs. Identi- flowed 2.5 km up
fication of causes of movement requires the col- Rio Santa (Point E)
and continued 160
lection of data over time from a variety of field
km downstream to
instruments, including seismographs, rain gauges, Pacific Ocean,
flow gauges, and piezometers. Some changes in devastating villages
material and mass properties with time may, how- and crops on its
ever, be inferred from gradual changes in the mass floodplain [Varnes
properties with distance. Anthropogenic causes 1978, Figure 2.27
can be documented by site records, plans, or other (modified from
Magnosit
Cluff 1971)].
observations.

9.1 Increased Shear Stresses

Shear stresses can be increased by processes that

lead to removal of lateral support, by the imposi-
tion of surcharges, by transitory stresses resulting
from explosions or earthquakes, and by uplift or
tilting of the land surface. FIGURE 3-42
Examples of rock
9.1.1 Removal of Support flows [Varnes 1978,
Figure 2.1p1l
The toe of a slope can be removed by erosion, steep- (Nemok et al. 1972;
ening the slope. Typical agents are streams and Zischinsky 1966)].
70 Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation
Checklist of Landslide Causes
1. Geological causes
Weak materials
Sensitive materials
Weathered materials
Sheared materials
Jointed or fissured materials
Adversely oriented mass discontinuity
(bedding, schistosit etc.)
Adversely oriented structural discontinuity
(fault, unconformity, contact, etc.)
Contrast in permeability
Contrast in stiffness (stiff, dense material
over plastic materials)
2. Morphological causes
Tectonic or volcanic uplift
Glacial rebound
Fluvial erosion of slope toe
Wave erosion of slope toe
Glacial erosion of slope toe
Erosion of lateral margins
Subterranean erosion (solution, piping)
Deposition loading slope or its crest
Vegetation removal (by forest fire,
drought)
3. Physical causes
Intense rainfall
Rapid snow melt
Prolonged exceptional precipitation
Rapid drawdown (of floods and tides)
Earthquake
Volcanic eruption
Thawing
Freeze-and-thaw weathering
Shrink-and-swell weathering
4. Human causes
Excavation of slope or its toe
Loading of slope or its crest
Drawdown (of reservoirs)
Deforestation
Irrigation
Mining
Artificial vibration
Water leakage from utilities
rivers, glaciers, waves and currents, and slope move-
ments. Anthropogenic landslides can be caused by
excavations for cuts, quarries, pits, and canals, and
by the drawdown of lakes and reservoirs.
Removal of material from the lateral margins of
the displaced mass can also cause movement.
Material can be removed from below the landslide
by solution in karst terrain, by piping (the trans-
port of sediment in groundwater flows), or by mm-
irg. In some spreads, the loss of strength of the
material at depth within the displacing mass
results in its extrusion or, if the base of the spread
has liquefied, in its outward flow. These issues as
they relate to landslides in sensitive clay deposits
are discussed in Chapter 24.
9.1.2 Imposition of Surcharges
The addition of material can result in increases of
both the length and the height of the slope. Water
can be added by precipitation, both rain and snow;
by the flow of surface and groundwater into the
displacing mass; and even by the growth of gla-
ciers. Surcharges can be added by the movement
of landslides onto the slope, by volcanic activity,
and by the growth of vegetation. Anthropogenic
surcharges include construction of fills, stockpiles,
and waste dumps; structural weight; and water
from leaking canals, irrigation systems, reservoirs,
sewers, and septic tanks.
9.1.3 Transitory Stresses
The local stress field within a slope can be greatly
changed by transitory stresses from earthquakes
and explosions (both anthropogenic and vol-
canic). Smaller transitory changes in the stress
field can result from storms and from human
activity such as pile driving and the passage of
heavy vehicles.
9.1.4 Uplift or Tilting
Uplift or tilting may be caused by tectonic forces
or by volcanic processes. In either case, this type
of increased shear stress may be associated with
earthquakes, which themselves can trigger land-
slides (Section 9.1.3). The melting of the exten-
sive Pleistocene ice sheets has caused widespread
uplift in temperate and circumpolar regions.
Uplift of an area of the earth's surface generally
causes steepening of slopes in the area as drainage
responds by increased incision. The cutting of val-
leys in the uplifted area may cause valley rebound
and accompanying fracturing and loosening of val-
ley walls with inward shear along flat-lying dis-
continuities. The fractures and shears may allow
the buildup of pore-water pressures in the loosened
mass and eventually lead to landsliding.
9.2 Low Strength
Low strength of the earth or rock materials that
make up a landslide may reflect inherent material

characteristics or may result from the presence of
discontinuities within the soil or rock mass.
9.2.1 Material Characteristics
Materials may be naturally weak or may become
weak as a result of common natural processes such
as saturation with water. Organic materials and
clays have low natural strengths. Rocks that have
decomposed to clays by chemical weathering
(weathered volcanic tuffs, schists, and serpen-
tinites, for example) develop similar properties.
Besides the nature of the individual particles of
which the material is composed, the arrangement
of these particles (the fabric of the material) may
cause low material strengths. Sensitive materials,
which lose strength when disturbed, generally
have loose fabrics or textures.
9.2.2 Mass Characteristics
The soil or rock mass may be weakened by discon-
tinuities such as faults, bedding surfaces, foliations,
cleavages, joints, fissures, shears, and sheared zones
(Chapters 12 and 14). Contrasts in bedded sedi-
mentary sequences—such as stiff, thick beds over-
lying weak, plastic, thin beds or permeable sands
(or sandstones) alternating with weak, imperme-
able clays (or shales)—are sources of weakness.
9.3 Reduced Shear Strength
Clays are particularly prone to weathering pro-
cesses and other physicochemical reactipns. Hy-
dration of clay minerals results in loss of cohesion,
a process often associated with softening of fissured
clays. Fissuring of clays may be due to drying or to
release of vertical and lateral restraints by erosion
or excavation. The exchange of ions within clay
minerals with those in the pore water of the clays
may lead to substantial changes in the physical
properties of some clays. Electrical potentials set
up by these chemical reactions or by other pro-
cesses may attract water to the weathering front.
The effects of extremes of temperature caused
by severe weather are not confined to clays. Rocks
may disintegrate under cycles of freezing and
thawing or thermal expansion and contraction.
Dry weather may cause desiccation cracking of
weak or weathered rock along preexisting discon-
tinuities, such as bedding planes. Wet weather
may dissolve natural rock cements that hold par-
ticles together. Saturation with water reduces
Landslide Types and Processes 71
effective intergranular pressure and frjction and
destroys capillary tension.
10. SUMMARY
In the initial reconnaissance of a landslide, the
activity and the materials displaced in that type of
landslide would be described using terms from
Table 3-2, the dimensions defined in Table 3-4
would be estimated, and some preliminary hypoth-
eses would be chosen about the causes of the
movements. A simple landslide report form is pro-
vided in Figure 3-9; its format would allow the cre-
ation of simple data bases suited to much of the
data-base management software now available for
personal computers. The information collected
could be compared with summaries of other land-
slides (WP/WLI 1991) and used to guide addi-
tional investigations and mitigative measures.
Further investigation would increase the precision
of estimates of the dimensions and increase confi-
dence in the descriptions of activity and material
and in the hypotheses about the causes of move-
ment. The new information would then be added
to the data base to influence the analysis of new
landslides. These data bases could form the foun-
dations of expert systems for landslide mitigation.
REFERENCES
ABBREVIATIONS
IAEG International Association of Engineering
Geology
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization
WP/WLI Working Party on the World Landslide
Inventory (International Geotechnical
Societies and UNESCO)
Abele, G. 1974. Bergsturze in den Alpen: ihre
Verbreitung, Morphologie und Folgeerscheinun-
gen. Wissenschaftliche Alpenvereinshefte, Heft 25,
Munchen.
Andrus, R.D., and T.L. Youd. 1987. SubsuTface In-
vestigation of a Liquefaction Induced Lateral Spread,
Thousand Springs Valley, Idaho. Miscellaneous
Paper GL-87-8. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Baars, D. 1989. Canyonlands Country: Geology of
Can yonlands and Arches National Parks. Canon
Publishers Ltd., Lawrence, Kans., 140 pp.
72 Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation
Bagnold, R.A. 1956. The Flow of Cohesionless
Grains in Fluids. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London, Vol. A249, pp. 235-297.
Barlow, W. 1888. On the Horizontal Movements of
Rocks and the Relation of These Movements to
the Formation of Dykes and Faults and to Denuda-
tion and the Thickening of Strata. Quarterly Jour-
nal of the Geological Society, Vol. 44, pp. 783-796.
Bates, R.L., and J.A. Jackson, eds. 1987. Glossary of
Geology. American Geological Institute, Falls
Church, Va., 788 pp.
Bell, D.H., ed. 1992. Proc., Sixth International Sym-
posium on Landslides. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, 2 vols., 1495 pp.
Beyer, W. H., ed. 1987. Handbook of Mathematical
Sciences, 6th ed. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton,
Florida, 860 pp.
Bishop, A.W. 1973. Stability of Tips and Spoil Heaps.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol. 6,
No. 4, pp. 335-376.
Bonnard, C., ed. 1988. Proc., Fifth International Sym-
posium on Landslides. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, 3 vols., 1564 pp.
Brabb, E.E., and B.L. Harrod, eds. 1989. Landslides:
Extent and Economic Significance: Proc., 28th In-
ternational Geological Congress: Symposium on
Landslides, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Nether-
lands, 385 pp.
Brown, W.M., D.M. Cruden, andJ.S. Denison. 1992.
The Directory of the World Landslide Inventory.
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 92-427,
2l6pp.
Brunsden, D. 1984. Mudslides. In Slope Instability (D.
Brunsden and D.B. Prior, eds.), John Wiley and
Sons, Chichester, U.K., Chap. 9, pp. 363-418.
Brunsden, D., and D.B. Prior, eds. 1984. Slope In-
stability. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, U.K.,
62Opp.
Canadian Geotechnical Society. 1984. Proc., Fourth
International Symposium on Landslides. Toronto,
Canada, 3 vols., 1484 pp.
Church, H.K. 1981. Excavation Handbook. McGraw-
Hill, New York, N.Y., 1024 pp.
Cluff, L.S. 1971. Peru Earthquake of May 31, 1970:
Engineering Geology Observations. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 61, No. 3,
pp. 511-521.
Costa, J.E., and G.E Wieczorek, eds. 1987. Debris
Flows/Avalanches: Process, Recognition, and Mitiga-
tion. Reviews in Engineering Geology, Vol. 7,
Geological Society of America, Boulder, Cob.,
239 pp.
Cross, W. 1924. Historical Sketch of the Landslides of
the Gaillard Cut. Memoir 18. National Academy
of Sciences, Washington, D.C., pp. 22-43.
Crozier, M.J. 1984. Field Assessment of Slope Insta-
bility. In Slope Instability (D. Brunsen and D.B.
Prior, eds.), John Wiley & Sons, New York,
pp. 103-142.
Crozier, M.J. 1986. Landslides: Causes, Consequences,
and Environment. Croom Helm, London, 252 pp.
Cruden, D.M. 1978. Discussion of Hocking's Paper.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Science, Vol. 15, No. 4, p. 217.
Cruden, D.M. 1984. More Rapid Analysis of Rock
Slopes. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 21,
No. 4, pp. 678-683.
Cruden, D.M. 1986. Discussion of Carter, M., and
S.P. Bentley. 1985. The Geometry of Slip Surfaces
Beneath Landslides: Predictions from Surface
Measurements. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 23, No. 1, p. 94.
Cruden, D.M. 1991. A Simple Definition of a
Landslide. Bulletin of the International Association
of Engineering Geology, No. 43, pp. 27-29.
Cruden, D.M., Z.Q. Hu, and Z.Y. Lu. 1993. Rock
Topples in the Highway Cut West of Clairvivaux
Creek, Jasper, Alberta. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 1016-1023.
Cruden, D.M., S. Thomson, and B.A. Hoffman.
1991. Observations of Graben Geometry in Land-
slides. In Slope Stability Engineering-Developments
and Applications: Proc., International Conference on
Slope Stability, Isle of Wight, 15-18 April (R.J.
Chandler, ed.), Thomas Telford Ltd., London,
pp. 33-36.
Dana, J.D. 1877. New Text-book of Geology Designed
for Schools and Academies. Ivison, Blakeman,
Taylor, New York, 366 pp.
De Freitas, M.H., and R.J. Watters. 1973. Some Field
Examples of Toppling Failure. Geotechnique, Vol.
23, No. 4, pp. 495-5 14.
Eckersley, J.D. 1990. Instrumented Laboratory Flow-
slides. Geotechnique, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 489-502.
Eisbacher, G.H., and J.J. Clague. 1984. Desrructive
Mass Movements in High Mountains: Hazard and
Management. Paper 84-16. Geological Survey of
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 230 pp.
Eliot, T.S. 1963. Collected Poems 1909-1962. Faber,
London, 234 pp.
Engineering News Record. 1971. Contrived Landslide
Kills 15 in Japan. Vol. 187, p. 18.
Evans, S.G., J.J. Clague, G.J.Woodsworth, and 0.
Hungr. 1989. The Pandemonium Creek Rock
Avalanche, British Columbia. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 427-446.
Giraud, A., L. Rochet, and P. Antoine. 1990.
Processes of Slope Failure in Crystallophyllian
Formations. Engineering Geology, Vol. 29, No. 3,
pp. 241-253.

Goodman, R.E., and J.W. Bray. 1976. Toppling of
Rock Slopes. In Proc., Specialty Conference on
Rock Engineering for Foundations and Slopes,
Boulder, Cob., Aug. 15-18, American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, Vol. 2, pp. 201-234.
Haefeli, R. 1965. Creep and Progressive Failure in
Snow, Soil, Rock, and Ice. In Proc., Sixth Interna-
tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, University of Toronto Press, Vol. 3,
pp. 134-148.
Hansen, W.R. 1965. Effects of the Earthquake of March
27, 1964, at Anchorage, Alaska. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 542-A, 68 pp.
Harrison, J.V., and N.L. Falcon. 1934. Collapse
Structures. Geological Magazine, Vol. 71, No. 12,
pp. 529-539.
Harrison, J.V., and N.L. Falcon. 1936. Gravity Col-
lapse Structures and Mountain Ranges as Exemp-
lified in South-western Persia. Quarterly Journal
of the Geological Society of London, Vol. 92,
pp. 9 1-102.
Heim, A. 1932. Bergsturz und Menschenleben.
Beiblatt zur Vierteljahrsschrift der Naturforschenden
Gesellschaft in Zurich, Vol. 77, pp. 1-217. Trans-
lated by N. Skermer under the title Landslides
and Human Lives, BiTech Publishers, Vancouver,
British Columbia, 1989, 195 pp.
Hocking, G. 1976. A Method for Distinguishing
Between Single and Double Plane Sliding of
Tetrahedral Wedges. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Science, Vol. 13, No. 7,
pp. 225-226.
Hoek, E., and J.W. Bray. 1981. Rock Slope Engineering.
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London,
358 pp.
Horswill, P., and A. Horton. 1976. Cambering and
Valley Bulging in the Gwash Valley at Emping-
ham, Rutland. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, Series A, Vol. 283, No.
1315, pp. 427-462.
Hsu, K.J. 1975. Catastrophic Debris Streams (Sturz-
stroms) Generated by Rockfalls. Bulletin of the
Geological Society of America, Vol. 86, No. 1,
pp. 129-140.
Hu, X.Q., and D.M. Cruden. 1993. Buckling Defor-
mation in the Highwood Pass, Alberta. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 276-286.
Huder, J. 1976. Creep in Bundner Schist. Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute (Laurits Bjerrum Memorial
Volume), Oslo, pp. 125-153.
Hungr, 0., and S.G. Evans. 1988. Engineering Eval-
uation of Fragmental Rockfall Hazards. In Proc.,
Fifth International Symposium on Landslides (C.
Bonnard, ed.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Neth-
erlands, Vol. 1, pp. 685-690.
Landslide Types and Processes 73
Hutchinson, J.N. 1967. The Free Degradation of
London Clay Cliffs. In Proc., Geotechnical Confer-
ence on Shear Strength Properties of Nat,ural Soils and
Rocks, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo,
Vol. 1, pp. 113-118.
Hutchinson, J.[N.] 1968. Mass Movement. In En-
cyclopedia of Geomorphology (R.W. Fairbridge, ed.),
Reinhold, New York, pp. 688-695.
Hutchinson, J.N. 1973. The Response of London
Clay Cliffs to Differing Rates of Toe Erosion. Geo-
logia Applicata e Idrogeologia, Vol. 8, pp. 22 1-239.
Hutchinson, J.N. 1983. Methods of Locating Slip
Surfaces in Landslides. Bulletin of the International
Association of Engineering Geology, Vol. 20, No.3,
pp. 235-252.
Hutchinson, J.N. 1988. General Report: Morpholog-
ical and Geotechnical Parameters of Landslides in
Relation to Geology and Hydrogeology. In Proc.,
Fifth International Symposium on Landslides (C.
Bonnard, ed.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Nether-
lands, Vol. 1, pp. 3-35.
Hutchinson, J.N. 1991. Periglacial and Slope Processes.
Engineering Geology Special Publication 7, Geo-
logical Society of London, pp. 283-33 1.
Hutchinson, J.N., and R.K. Bhandari. 1971. Un-
drained Loading, a Fundamental Mechanism of
Mudflows and Other Mass Movements. Geo-
technique, Vol. 21, pp. 353-358.
Hutchinson, J.N., and T.P. Gostelow. 1976. The De-
velopment of an Abandoned Cliff in London Clay
at Hadleigh, Essex. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, Series A, Vol. 283, pp.
557-604.
IAEG Commission on Landslides. 1990. Suggested
Nomenclature for Landslides. Bulletin of the Inter-
national Association of Engineering Geology, No. 41,
pp. 13-16.
Jones, FO., D.R. Embody, and W.L. Peterson. 1961.
Landslides Along the Columbia River Valley, North-
eastern Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Pro-
fessional Paper 367, 98 pp.
Jordan, R.H. 1949. A Florida Landslide. Journal of
Geology, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 418-419.
Keefer, D.K., and A.M. Johnson. 1983. Earthflows:
Morphology, Mobilization and Movement. U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Professional Paper 1264, 56 pp.
Kostak, B., and D.M. Cruden. 1990. The Moire
Crack Gauges on the Crown of the Frank Slide.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, No. 6,
pp. 835-840.
Kovari, K., and P;Fritz. 1984. Recent Developments
in the Analysis and Monitoring of Rock Slopes.
In Proc., Fourth International Symposium on Land-
slides, Canadian Geotechnical Society, Toronto,
Vol. 1, pp. 1-16.
74 Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation
Kozlovskii, E.A. (ed.). 1988. Landslides and Mudflows.
UNESCO-UNEP, Moscow, 2 vols., 376 pp.
Krahn, J., and N.R. Morgenstern. 1979. The Ulti-
mate Frictional Resistance of Rock Discon-
tinuities. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Science, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 127-133.
Kyunttsel, V.V. 1988. Landslides. In Landslides and
Mudflows (E.A. Kozlovskii, ed.), United Nations
Environment Programme, UNESCO, Moscow,
Vol. 1, pp. 35-54.
McCalpin, J. 1984. Preliminary Age Classification of
Landslides for Inventory Mapping. In Proc., 21st
Engineering Geology and Soils Engineering Sym-
posium, University of Idaho, Moscow, pp. 99-120.
McConnell, R.G., and R.W. Brock. 1904. Report on
the Great Landslide at Frank, Alberta. In Annual
Report for 1903, Department of the Interior,
Ottawa, Canada, Part 8, 17 pp.
McGill, G.E., and A.W. Stromquist. 1979. The
Grabens of Canyonlands National Park, Utah:
Geometry, Mechanics, and Kinematics. Journal of
Geophysical Research, Vol. 84, No. B9, pp. 4547-
4563.
McRoberts, E.C., and N.R. Morgenstern. 1974.
Stability of Slopes in Frozen Soil, Mackenzie
Valley, North West Territories. Canadian Geo-
technical Journal, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 554-573.
Morgenstern, N.R. 1985. Geotechnical Aspects of
Environmental Control. In Proc., 11th Interna-
tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Nether-
lands, Vol. 1, pp. 155-185.
Mueller, L. 1964. The Rock Slide in the Vaiont
Valley. Rock Mechanics and Engineering Geology,
Vol. 2, No. 3-4, pp. 148-212.
Nemok, A., J. Pasek, and J. Rybár. 1972. Classifi-
cation of Landslides and Other Mass Movements.
Rock Mechanics, Vol. 4, pp. 7 1-78.
Nicoletti, P.G., and M. Sorriso-Valvo. 1991. Geo-
morphic Controls of the Shape and Mobility of
Rock Avalanches. Bulletin of the Geological Society
of America, Vol. 103, No. 10, pp. 1365-1373.
Ostaficzuk, S. 1973. Large-Scale Landslides in North-
western Libya. Acta Geologica Pcilonica, Vol. 23,
No. 2, pp. 23 1-244.
Palmer, L. 1977. Large Landslides of the Columbia
River Gorge, Oregon and Washington. In Land-
slides (D.R. Coates, ed.), Reviews in Engineering
Geology, Vol. 3, Geological Society of America,
Boulder, Cob., pp. 69-83.
Panet, M. 1969. Discussion of K.W. John's Paper
(ASCE Proc. Paper 5865, March 1968). Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE,
Vol. 95, No. SM2, pp. 685-686.
Pierson, T.C., and J.E. Costa. 1987. A Rheologic
Classification of Subaerial Sediment—Water
Flows. In Debris Flows/Avalanches: Process, Recog-
nition, and Mitigation (I.E. Costa and G.E Wie-
czorek, eds.), Reviews in Engineering Geology, Vol.
7, Geological Society of America, Boulder, Cob.,
pp. 1-12.
Potter, D.B., and G.E. McGill. 1978. Valley Anti-
dines of the Needles District, Canyonlands
National Park, Utah. Bulletin of the Geological
Society of America, Vol. 89, No. 6, pp. 952-960.
Prior, D.B., N. Stephens, and D.R. Archer. 1968.
Composite Mudflows on the Antrim Coast of
North-East Ireland. Geografiska Annaler, Vol.
50A, No. 2, pp. 65-78.
Radbruch-Hall, D.H. 1978. Gravitational Creep of
Rock Masses on Slopes. In Rockslides and Ava-
lanches ( B. Voight, ed.), Vol. 1: Natural Pheno-
mena, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp.
607-657.
Radbruch-Hall, D.H., D.J. Varnes, and W.Z. Savage.
1976. Gravitational Spreading of Steep-Sided
Ridges ("sackung") in Western United States.
Bulletin of the International Association of Engi-
neering Geology, No. 14, pp. 23-35.
Ramsay, J.G. 1967. Folding and Fracturing of Rocks.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 568 pp.
Ritchie, A.M. 1963. Evaluation of Rockfall and Its
Control. In Highway Research Record 17, HRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
pp. 13-28.
Rybár, J., and J. Dobr. 1966. Fold Deformations in the
North-Bohemian Coal Basins. Sbornik geologickych
v ed, Rada HIG, No. 5, pp. 133-140.
Shaller, P.J. 1991. Analysis of a Large, Moist Land-
slide, Lost River Range, Idaho, U.S.A. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 584-600.
Shelton, J.S. 1966. Geology illust-rated. W.H. Freeman
and Co., San Francisco, 434 pp.
Shreve, R.L. 1968. The Blackhawk Landslide. Special
Paper 108. Geological Society of America,
Boulder, Cob., 47 pp.
Shroder, J.F. 1971. Landslides of Utah. Bulletin 90.
Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey, 50 pp.
Skempton, A.W. 1970. First-TIme Slides in Over-
Consolidated Clays. Geotechnique, Vol. 20, No. 3,
pp. 320-324.
Skempton, A.W., and J.N. Hutchinson. 1969. Sta-
bility of Natural Slopes and Embankment Foun-
dations. In Proc., Seventh International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Sociedad Mexicana de Mecána de Suebos, Mexico
City, State of the Art Volume, pp. 29 1-340.
Skempton, A.W., and A.G. Weeks. 1976. The
Quaternary History of the Lower Greensand
Escarpment and Weald Clay Vale near Sevenoaks,
Kent. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
of London, Series A, Vol. 283, pp. 493-526.

Swaminathan, C.G., ed. 1980. Proc., Third Interna-
tional Symposium on Landslides, Santa Prakashan,
New Delhi, India, 3 vols., 927 pp.
Tavenas, F., J.Y. Chagnon, and P. LaRochelle. 1971.
The Saint-Jean Vianney Landslide: Observations
and Eyewitness Accounts. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 463-478.
Ter-Stepanian, G. 1980. Measuring Displacements of
Wooded Landslides with Trilateral Signs. In Proc.,
Third International Symposium on Landslides ( C.G.
Swaminathan, ed.), Santa Prakashan, New Delhi,
India, Vol. 1, pp. 355-361.
Terzaghi, K. 1950. Mechanism of Landslides. In
Application of Geology to Engineering Practice
(S. Paige, ed.), Geological Society of America,
New York, pp. 83-1 23.
Terzaghi, K., and R.B. Peck. 1948. Soil Mechanics in
Engineering Practice. John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 566 pp.
Thomson, S., and D.W. Hayley. 1975. The Little
Smoky Landslide. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 379-392.
Van Gassen, W., and D.M. Cruden. 1989. Momen-
tum Transfer and Friction in the Debris of Rock
Avalanches. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
26, No. 4, pp. 623-628.
Van Horn, R. 1975. Largest Known Landslide of Its
Type in the United States-A Failure by Lateral
Spreading in Davis County, Utah. Utah Geology,
Vol. 2, pp. 82-87.
Varnes, D.J. 1958. Landslide Types and Processes. In
Special Report 29: Landslides and Engineering Prac-
tice (E.B. Eckel, ed.), HRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 20-47.
Varnes, D.J. 1978. Slope Movement Types and Pro-
cesses. In Special Report 176: LAndslides: Analysis
and Control (R.L. Schuster and R.J. Krizek, eds.),
TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., pp. 11-33.
Varnes, D.J. 1984. Landslide Hazard Zonation: A
Review of Principles and Practice. UNESCO, Paris,
63 pp.
Varnes, D.J., D.H. Radbruch-Hall, and W.Z. Savage.
1989. Topographic and Structural Conditions in
Areas of Gravitational Spreading of Ridges in the
Western United States. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1496, 28 pp.
Varnes, D.J., D.H. Radbruch-Hall, K.L. Varnes, W.K.
Smith, and W.Z. Savage. 1990. Measurements of
Ridge-Spreading Movements (Sackungen) at Bald
Eagle Mountain, Lake County, Colorado, 1975-
1989. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report
90-543, 13 pp.
Landslide Types and Processes 75
Varnes, H.D. 1949. Landslide Problems of Southwest-
ern Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 31,
13 pp.
Voight, B. 1990. The 1985 Nevado del Ruiz Volcano
Catastrophe: Anatomy and Retrospection. Journal
of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, Vol. 44,
No. 1-2, pp. 349-386.
Walton, G., and T. Atkinson. 1978. Some Geo-
technical Considerations in the Planning of Sur-
face Coal Mines. Transactions of the Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. 87, pp. A147-A171.
Ward, W.H. 1948. A Coastal Landslip. In Proc.,
Second International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, International Society
of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Rotterdam, Vol. 2, pp. 33-38.
Wieczorek, G.F. 1984. Preparing a Detailed
Landslide-Inventory Map for Hazard Evaluation
and Reduction. Bulletin of the Association of En-
gineering Geologists, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 337-342.
Wilson, S.D. 1970. Observational Data on Ground
Movements Related to Slope Instability. Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
Vol. 96, No. SM4, pp. 152 1-1544.
Wilson, S.D., and P.E. Mikkelsen. 1978. Field
Instrumentation. In Special Report 176: Landslides:
Analysis and Control (R.L. Schuster and R.J.
Krizek, eds.), TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., pp. 112-138.
WP/WLI. 1990. A Suggested Method for Reporting
a Landslide. Bulletin of the International Association
of Engineering Geology, No.41, pp. 5-12.
WP/WLI. 1991. A Suggested Method for a Landslide
Summary. Bulletin of the International Association of
Engineering Geology, No. 43, pp. 101-110.
WP/WLI. 1993a. A Suggested Method for Describ-
ing the Activity of a Landslide. Bulletin of the Inter-
national Association of Engineering Geology, No.47,
pp. 53-57.
WP/WLI. 1993b. Multilingual Landslide Glossary. Bi-
Tech Publishers, Richmond, British Columbia,
Canada, 59 pp.
Zaruba, Q., and V. Mend. 1969. Landslides and Their
Control, 1st ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
205 pp.
Zaruba, Q., and V. Mend. 1982. Landslides and Their
Control, 2nd ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Nether-
lands, 324 pp.
Zischinsky, U. 1966. On the Deformation of High
Slopes. In Proc., First Congress of the International
Society for Rock Mechanics, Lisbon, Sept. 25-1
Oct., 1966, International Society for Rock
Mechanics, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 2, pp. 179-185.